Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [blogrollers] New social software blog

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Lawley
    Am thumb-typing on my phone at a faculty meeting, so can t respond in detail til later...but definitely will. Conferences on the 16th-19th are Pop!Tech and
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Am thumb-typing on my phone at a faculty meeting, so can't respond in
      detail 'til later...but definitely will.

      Conferences on the 16th-19th are Pop!Tech and Assn of Internet
      Researchers. Both will draw from some of the same groups you're
      targeting.

      Liz

      On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 9:58AM -0500, Dave Winer wrote:
      > Change my mind -- it's open -- is there anything new in Social Software
      > or is it another manufactured trend? Is it real news or is it
      > techno-turf? (Like astroturf, but from the technology community.)
      > Looking forward to the response. Also if possible, what are the
      > backgrounds of the proponents, and disclose their interests. I'm kind
      > of vague on that. Not sure of the date for BloggerCon yet. What conf's
      > are on the 16th? Dave
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Elizabeth Lawley
      > To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:41 AM
      > Subject: Re: [blogrollers] New social software blog
      >
      >
      > Always nice to start out the day with such a warm and fuzzy greeting.
      > :-)
      >
      > Of course, there's no such thing as bad publicity (or a bad link,
      > considering how Google ranks sites...) And dissent is important when
      > hype starts to build--whether it's about blogs, or social software
      > more
      > broadly.
      >
      > Will respond in more detail on my blog.
      >
      > p.s. Am really hoping that your "bloggercon" won't be the weekend of
      > the
      > 16th, since I already have two conferences I want to be at then...
      >
      > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 8:47AM -0500, Dave Winer wrote:
      > > Excellent.
      > >
      > > I wrote a bit about social software this morning.
      > >
      > > http://scriptingnews.userland.com/2003/04/25#thisPigWontFly
      > >
      > > Yours in discourse..
      > >
      > > Dave
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Elizabeth Lane Lawley
      > > To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 8:01 AM
      > > Subject: [blogrollers] New social software blog
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi, folks.
      > >
      > > Just wanted to let you know (some of you may know already) that
      > > Corante
      > > launched a new "social software" blog called "Many2Many"
      > yesterday.
      > > It's a group-authored blog, with me, Clay Shirky, Ross Mayfield,
      > Seb
      > > Paquet, and Jessica Hammer.
      > >
      > > Hope you'll consider stopping by...and eventually adding us to
      > your
      > > blogrolls. :-)
      > >
      > > Liz
      > >
      > > .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
      > > Elizabeth Lane Lawley, Ph.D.
      > > Asst. Professor - RIT/Info Tech
      > > site: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/
      > > blog: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/mamamusings/
      > > .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Dave Winer
      Charles Cooper s column today at News.Com is right on topic: http://rss.com.com/2010-1071-998285.html You have to wonder about the wisdom of the over-the-top,
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Charles Cooper's column today at News.Com is right on topic:

        http://rss.com.com/2010-1071-998285.html

        "You have to wonder about the wisdom of the over-the-top,
        we-just-reinvented-the-universe approach. It's easy to understand why so
        many vendors are eager to bang that drum as loudly as possible. But maybe if
        they just stopped talking in tongues, they'd get a better reception.

        "After the three years of Sturm und Drang, IT customers are thirsting for
        straight talk--a commodity which will always be in demand and should seep
        into on-demand territory."

        That's how "Social Software" sounds to my ear. We just re-invented the
        world. Now you have to tell us how, without the hand-waving.

        Dave
      • Donna Wentworth
        Poptech especially. John Perry will almost certainly be at Poptech; it would be terrific to have him at BloggerCon, I think... *************** Donna Wentworth
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Poptech especially. John Perry will almost certainly be at Poptech; it would
          be terrific to have him at BloggerCon, I think...


          ***************
          Donna Wentworth
          Berkman Center for Internet & Society
          Harvard Law School
          < http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter>
          >
          < http://www.copyfight.org <http://www.copyfight.org/> >
          donna@...



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Elizabeth Lawley [mailto:ell@...]
          Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:03 AM
          To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [blogrollers] New social software blog


          Am thumb-typing on my phone at a faculty meeting, so can't respond in
          detail 'til later...but definitely will.

          Conferences on the 16th-19th are Pop!Tech and Assn of Internet
          Researchers. Both will draw from some of the same groups you're
          targeting.

          Liz

          On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 9:58AM -0500, Dave Winer wrote:
          > Change my mind -- it's open -- is there anything new in Social Software
          > or is it another manufactured trend? Is it real news or is it
          > techno-turf? (Like astroturf, but from the technology community.)
          > Looking forward to the response. Also if possible, what are the
          > backgrounds of the proponents, and disclose their interests. I'm kind
          > of vague on that. Not sure of the date for BloggerCon yet. What conf's
          > are on the 16th? Dave
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Elizabeth Lawley
          > To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:41 AM
          > Subject: Re: [blogrollers] New social software blog
          >
          >
          > Always nice to start out the day with such a warm and fuzzy greeting.
          > :-)
          >
          > Of course, there's no such thing as bad publicity (or a bad link,
          > considering how Google ranks sites...) And dissent is important when
          > hype starts to build--whether it's about blogs, or social software
          > more
          > broadly.
          >
          > Will respond in more detail on my blog.
          >
          > p.s. Am really hoping that your "bloggercon" won't be the weekend of
          > the
          > 16th, since I already have two conferences I want to be at then...
          >
          > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 8:47AM -0500, Dave Winer wrote:
          > > Excellent.
          > >
          > > I wrote a bit about social software this morning.
          > >
          > > http://scriptingnews.userland.com/2003/04/25#thisPigWontFly
          <http://scriptingnews.userland.com/2003/04/25#thisPigWontFly>
          > >
          > > Yours in discourse..
          > >
          > > Dave
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Elizabeth Lane Lawley
          > > To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 8:01 AM
          > > Subject: [blogrollers] New social software blog
          > >
          > >
          > > Hi, folks.
          > >
          > > Just wanted to let you know (some of you may know already) that
          > > Corante
          > > launched a new "social software" blog called "Many2Many"
          > yesterday.
          > > It's a group-authored blog, with me, Clay Shirky, Ross Mayfield,
          > Seb
          > > Paquet, and Jessica Hammer.
          > >
          > > Hope you'll consider stopping by...and eventually adding us to
          > your
          > > blogrolls. :-)
          > >
          > > Liz
          > >
          > > .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
          > > Elizabeth Lane Lawley, Ph.D.
          > > Asst. Professor - RIT/Info Tech
          > > site: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/ <http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/>
          > > blog: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/mamamusings/
          <http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/mamamusings/>
          > > .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

          ADVERTISEMENT

          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.3115308.4434529.2595810/D=egroupweb/S=17050160
          61:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>

          <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.3115308.4434529.2595810/D=egroupmai
          l/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=491275374>

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Elizabeth Lane Lawley
          Back on the laptop. Here s what I wrote while sitting through interminable meetings today. Don t know yet how much of this will make it out to either of the
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Back on the laptop. Here's what I wrote while sitting through
            interminable meetings today. Don't know yet how much of this will make
            it out to either of the blogs. Still thinking. But thought I'd share it
            with this smaller group.

            =====

            Social software isn't a new thing. One could argue (correctly, I
            think), that it's been around since the first e-mail message was sent.
            Early adopters of network technologies were active participants in
            "social" environments like Adventure, BITNET LISTSERVs, and CompuServer
            CB Simulator. So why is there so much energy and excitement right now
            in developer and academic communities about "social software"? Is it
            just hype? (Dave Winer thinks so.) Or is it something more?

            The fact that something's not "new" doesn't make it unworthy of
            discussion and debate, however. Weblogs aren't "new," but there's lots
            of talk about them right now. Intellectual property arguments and
            conflicts aren't new, but nobody's arguing that Donna Wentworth's blog
            is "just hype." Biotech isn't new, either. XML isn't new. Does that
            mean that we should stop talking about them?

            Ten years ago, when I was a doctoral student, my major area of interest
            was "computer-mediated communication." In a lot of ways, what academics
            (and developers) were calling CMC back in the '80s and '90s is the same
            thing that we're calling social software today. But getting people to
            take CMC seriously as both a medium for and a subject of research was a
            challenge back then. Only in the past few years have we seen the
            emergence of an academic journal focused on the topic. And finding
            clear definitions of CMC is still a challenge.

            So what's different now? A lot of things, I think. First of all, more
            ubiquity in connectivity. The Internet is no longer a niche market,
            primarily restricted to well-educated, technically sophisticated people
            working in high-tech and academic environments. Second, fewer technical
            barriers to adoption. For example, it used to be a serious challenge to
            figure out how to create a BITNET LISTSERV for people who shared your
            interests. It's far easier to create a Yahoo! group (which is why my
            sons' cub scout pack has one for alerting parents to upcoming events).
            Third, a new crop of researchers is coming of age in the
            academy--people who recognize computer-mediated environments as a
            "real" sociological and communicative environment (look at people like
            Seb Paquet, Eszter Hargittai, Alex Halavais, Thomas Burg, and even me,
            for example).

            No, this isn't something "new." But it's still in need of a number of
            things right now.

            The first is a shared vocabulary. What are we _talking_ about when we
            talk about social software? Are blogs "social," for example? Some are
            really just publishing platforms (Dave Winer, for example, doesn't
            provide any mechanisms for commenting or trackbacks on his blog--is it
            really social? I'd argue not. Others are very social, with much of
            their value coming from the discussions in the comments and the content
            in the trackbacks (Shelley Powers comes to mind here--not that her
            original content isn't key to the weblog, but it's enriched and
            expanded by the social nature of her comments and trackbacks). Ross'
            ecosystem of networks (posted earlier) provides for an interesting
            discussion of various "modes" for blogs--and that's the kind of
            valuable (to me, anyhow) analysis that these new conversations on
            social software are yielding.

            The second is a shared (and open) community of developers and
            researchers. The SSA is a starting point for this, but already the
            tensions are obvious. The researchers want definitions. The developers
            want us to quit talking and start coding. What I'm hoping is that we'll
            start to find a place in the middle that will help us both.

            Lately, I've found myself regularly reminded of something that Howard
            Rheingold wrote in his book _The Virtual Community_ back in 1993:

            "Right now, all we have on the Net is folklore, like the Netiquette
            that old-timers try to teach the flood of new arrivals, and debates
            about freedom of expression versus nurturance of community. About two
            dozen social scientists, working for several years, might produce
            conclusions that would help inform these debates and furnish a basis of
            validated observation for all the theories flying around. A science of
            Net behavior is not going to reshape the way people behave online, but
            knowledge of the dynamics of how people do behave is an important
            social feedback loop to install if the Net is to be self-governing at
            any scale."

            Here we are, a decade later, without much of that "social feedback
            loop" in place. There's now an Association of Internet Researchers,
            where a lot of interesting research is being talked about. And there's
            certainly lots of exciting new software being developed. But there have
            been huge gaps between the resesarch community and the development
            community, and I think both sides are poorer for it.

            What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that both
            seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. Both have
            representation from both research and development, from the academy and
            from industry. But all the participants have a history of working with
            social technologies. Most were early adopters, many are innovators
            and/or though tful critics in the field.

            What's new is that these people are _talking_ to each other. (Not
            always nicely, but that's still an improvement over silence.) Yes, we
            need people to write code, build systems, think outside the box. But I
            think we also need people to provide a feedback loop in that process.
            It doesn't need to be--and _shouldn't_ be--an either/or situation.


            .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
            Elizabeth Lane Lawley, Ph.D.
            Asst. Professor - RIT/Info Tech
            site: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/
            blog: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/mamamusings/
            .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
          • Dave Winer
            As I read this, I want to take the quotes off new. It makes it read much plainer, and more accurately, less defensive. No, of course there s nothing wrong
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              As I read this, I want to take the quotes off "new." It makes it read much plainer, and more accurately, less defensive.

              No, of course there's nothing wrong about discussion of, even promotion of, ideas that aren't new. Good examples: safe sex, wearing seat belts, voting, taking your vitamins, those are just a few things that are not new that are worth promoting.

              When people ask me if weblogs are new, I say they aren't. I often volunteer that. I feel it's important to set expectations. If I didn't the ideas wouldn't have a chance to be appreciated for what they are.

              But I have watched with horror as good ideas have been promoted as panaceas by people who don't understand them. The first time it happened to something I cared about was with outliners when they were eclipsed by Personal Information Managers. Same idea. Different words. It would have worked out better for had the energy applied to a half-baked product been applied to the then-maturing category of outliners. But then, quickly, it was time to move on to another flash in the pan and then another and another.

              My hope is that we're done with technology as a flash in the pan, as a way to make marketing hypesters rich at the expense of users waiting for an upgrade to a product that's never going to get upgraded.

              Think about it -- how can you help what's already working -- instead of replacing it. It's a bad omen, imho, that Clay had a Social Software Summit and chose only a few people in the business to be present. I don't want Clay doing the choosing. I know he shrugs it off, but he is choosing who speaks about this Social Software thing. Better imho if the idea just fades away and let's stay focused on making our software better and having the stuff work better together.

              Dave


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Elizabeth Lane Lawley
              To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:52 PM
              Subject: Re: [blogrollers] New social software blog


              Back on the laptop. Here's what I wrote while sitting through
              interminable meetings today. Don't know yet how much of this will make
              it out to either of the blogs. Still thinking. But thought I'd share it
              with this smaller group.

              =====

              Social software isn't a new thing. One could argue (correctly, I
              think), that it's been around since the first e-mail message was sent.
              Early adopters of network technologies were active participants in
              "social" environments like Adventure, BITNET LISTSERVs, and CompuServer
              CB Simulator. So why is there so much energy and excitement right now
              in developer and academic communities about "social software"? Is it
              just hype? (Dave Winer thinks so.) Or is it something more?

              The fact that something's not "new" doesn't make it unworthy of
              discussion and debate, however. Weblogs aren't "new," but there's lots
              of talk about them right now. Intellectual property arguments and
              conflicts aren't new, but nobody's arguing that Donna Wentworth's blog
              is "just hype." Biotech isn't new, either. XML isn't new. Does that
              mean that we should stop talking about them?

              Ten years ago, when I was a doctoral student, my major area of interest
              was "computer-mediated communication." In a lot of ways, what academics
              (and developers) were calling CMC back in the '80s and '90s is the same
              thing that we're calling social software today. But getting people to
              take CMC seriously as both a medium for and a subject of research was a
              challenge back then. Only in the past few years have we seen the
              emergence of an academic journal focused on the topic. And finding
              clear definitions of CMC is still a challenge.

              So what's different now? A lot of things, I think. First of all, more
              ubiquity in connectivity. The Internet is no longer a niche market,
              primarily restricted to well-educated, technically sophisticated people
              working in high-tech and academic environments. Second, fewer technical
              barriers to adoption. For example, it used to be a serious challenge to
              figure out how to create a BITNET LISTSERV for people who shared your
              interests. It's far easier to create a Yahoo! group (which is why my
              sons' cub scout pack has one for alerting parents to upcoming events).
              Third, a new crop of researchers is coming of age in the
              academy--people who recognize computer-mediated environments as a
              "real" sociological and communicative environment (look at people like
              Seb Paquet, Eszter Hargittai, Alex Halavais, Thomas Burg, and even me,
              for example).

              No, this isn't something "new." But it's still in need of a number of
              things right now.

              The first is a shared vocabulary. What are we _talking_ about when we
              talk about social software? Are blogs "social," for example? Some are
              really just publishing platforms (Dave Winer, for example, doesn't
              provide any mechanisms for commenting or trackbacks on his blog--is it
              really social? I'd argue not. Others are very social, with much of
              their value coming from the discussions in the comments and the content
              in the trackbacks (Shelley Powers comes to mind here--not that her
              original content isn't key to the weblog, but it's enriched and
              expanded by the social nature of her comments and trackbacks). Ross'
              ecosystem of networks (posted earlier) provides for an interesting
              discussion of various "modes" for blogs--and that's the kind of
              valuable (to me, anyhow) analysis that these new conversations on
              social software are yielding.

              The second is a shared (and open) community of developers and
              researchers. The SSA is a starting point for this, but already the
              tensions are obvious. The researchers want definitions. The developers
              want us to quit talking and start coding. What I'm hoping is that we'll
              start to find a place in the middle that will help us both.

              Lately, I've found myself regularly reminded of something that Howard
              Rheingold wrote in his book _The Virtual Community_ back in 1993:

              "Right now, all we have on the Net is folklore, like the Netiquette
              that old-timers try to teach the flood of new arrivals, and debates
              about freedom of expression versus nurturance of community. About two
              dozen social scientists, working for several years, might produce
              conclusions that would help inform these debates and furnish a basis of
              validated observation for all the theories flying around. A science of
              Net behavior is not going to reshape the way people behave online, but
              knowledge of the dynamics of how people do behave is an important
              social feedback loop to install if the Net is to be self-governing at
              any scale."

              Here we are, a decade later, without much of that "social feedback
              loop" in place. There's now an Association of Internet Researchers,
              where a lot of interesting research is being talked about. And there's
              certainly lots of exciting new software being developed. But there have
              been huge gaps between the resesarch community and the development
              community, and I think both sides are poorer for it.

              What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that both
              seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. Both have
              representation from both research and development, from the academy and
              from industry. But all the participants have a history of working with
              social technologies. Most were early adopters, many are innovators
              and/or though tful critics in the field.

              What's new is that these people are _talking_ to each other. (Not
              always nicely, but that's still an improvement over silence.) Yes, we
              need people to write code, build systems, think outside the box. But I
              think we also need people to provide a feedback loop in that process.
              It doesn't need to be--and _shouldn't_ be--an either/or situation.


              .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
              Elizabeth Lane Lawley, Ph.D.
              Asst. Professor - RIT/Info Tech
              site: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/
              blog: http://www.it.rit.edu/~ell/mamamusings/
              .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.


              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Danny Ayers
              Dave is of course right when he says that the ideas aren t really new. NNTP news, email, the web itself etc etc are all arguably Social Software. Specifically
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave is of course right when he says that the ideas aren't really
                new. NNTP news, email, the web itself etc etc are all arguably
                Social Software. Specifically in light of recent developments, there
                was at least one blog around 10+ years ago [1], and XML
                news/syndication formats date back at least 6 years [2]. But the
                difference is these things are now joining up like never before. The
                infrastructure (hardware, protocols, languages) really is now ready
                for the multi-way web.

                A case in point: just now I got a comment from Dave on my blog.
                Clicking on the link attached to his name took me to his blog. There
                I read a post referring to this list. A moment or two later I
                clicked "Join this Group" - and here I am. Hi folks!

                This couldn't/wouldn't have happened a few years ago. IMHO it is an
                extremely good time to reevaluate what we've got and where we're
                going in the context of 'Social Software'.

                Cheers,
                Danny.

                [1] http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-
                hypertext/hypertext/WWW/News/9201.html
                [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
              • Dave Winer
                ... Excuse me while I faint. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  >>Dave is of course right

                  Excuse me while I faint.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • marccanter
                  What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that both seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. - Liz My hope is that we re done
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 26, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What excites me about the budding SSA, and this new blog, is that
                    both seem to be moving towards more dialog in these areas. - Liz

                    My hope is that we're done with technology as a flash in the pan, as
                    a way to make marketing hypesters rich at the expense of users
                    waiting for an upgrade to a product that's never going to get
                    upgraded. - Dave

                    Social software isn't a new thing. XML isn't new. Does that mean that
                    we should stop talking about them? - Liz

                    ----------

                    Clay made it clear (during his keynote at ETCON) that basic human
                    behavior patterns not only influence, but in fact dictate social
                    software. The phrase he's using - connotes not just technology but
                    also human behavior patterns.

                    This intermix and recognition of the sociological aspects of social
                    software is what's different now. Clay went on to quote numerous
                    books and studies which have disclosed classic group versus
                    individual conflicts that we all know well.

                    So what's new now?

                    A balance between the technical and sociological factors.
                    Technologists need to take into account these basic human behavior
                    patterns and sociologists need to learn about what's possible, and
                    request features and capabilities.
                  • Dave Winer
                    If I may present an alternate point of view -- what s different now is that Clay is hyping it, and it s exclusive.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

                      http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

                      In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

                      To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get consulting contracts.

                      Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

                      Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

                      Tell us about how stupid that was.

                      Dave

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Marc Canter
                      You re absolutely right. But I don t think we ll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our software is usable by humans. ... From: Dave Winer
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        You're absolutely right.

                        But I don't think we'll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our
                        software is usable by humans.
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                        Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:03 AM
                        To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


                        If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is
                        that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

                        http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

                        In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

                        To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get
                        consulting contracts.

                        Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait
                        for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

                        Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

                        Tell us about how stupid that was.

                        Dave

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT




                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Dave Winer
                        The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a look at is our software. That s the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside the
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a look at is "our software."

                          That's the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside the circle, and some is outside.

                          And whether you're in or out does depend, as Andrew Orlowski posited and Clay dismissed with a joke, whether Clay likes you or not.

                          Clay is a smart guy and he sure is easy to get along with, but he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated. Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to get along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get any quality to come out the other end. How much energy was wasted in the late 80s trying to get AI into your software. I saw that from the outside (I refused to jump on board) and then from the inside after merging with Symantec (an AI company, heh).

                          Hey Symantec actually did do some AI software, and it wasn't bad. The funny thing is that the pundits had lost interest by the time they shipped, and the users never placed that high a value on software that understood what they meant. ;->

                          Dave

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Marc Canter
                          To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:11 AM
                          Subject: RE: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


                          You're absolutely right.

                          But I don't think we'll be reinventing the wheel as much as making sure our
                          software is usable by humans.
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
                          Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:03 AM
                          To: blogrollers@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog


                          If I may present an alternate point of view -- what's different now is
                          that Clay is hyping it, and it's exclusive.

                          http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/0008kcbx?page=1

                          In that way it's very much like the hype balloons of the past.

                          To me it looks like a way for you to raise VC money and for Clay to get
                          consulting contracts.

                          Too bad for the users of current products, I guess -- they have to wait
                          for Clay and his friends to reinvent all the wheels, right?

                          Remember the CD ROM business, Marc?

                          Tell us about how stupid that was.

                          Dave

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          blogrollers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Danny Ayers
                          ... Not so. I don t think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay, but his writing on social software rang some bells for me. So I put my name on
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 27, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a
                            > look at is "our software."
                            >
                            > That's the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside
                            > the circle, and some is outside.
                            >
                            > And whether you're in or out does depend, as Andrew Orlowski
                            > posited and Clay dismissed with a joke, whether Clay likes you or not.

                            Not so. I don't think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay,
                            but his writing on social software rang some bells for me. So I put my name
                            on the list (on the Wiki, in actual fact). I wish to associate myself with
                            this work because I think the ideas are good. I will try and ensure that the
                            software I write is interoperates well with other software, is usable by
                            humans, etc etc. I am declaring *myself* inside the circle.

                            > Clay is a smart guy and he sure is easy to get along with, but
                            > he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated.

                            He's getting a great Extended Winer Number...

                            > Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to get
                            > along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get
                            > any quality to come out the other end.

                            Twaddle. I've seen loads of good and bad software over the years, and if
                            anything the better software came from people that were easy to get along
                            with - probably because they were better listeners.

                            How much energy was wasted
                            > in the late 80s trying to get AI into your software. I saw that
                            > from the outside (I refused to jump on board) and then from the
                            > inside after merging with Symantec (an AI company, heh).
                            >
                            > Hey Symantec actually did do some AI software, and it wasn't bad.
                            > The funny thing is that the pundits had lost interest by the time
                            > they shipped, and the users never placed that high a value on
                            > software that understood what they meant. ;->

                            I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

                            Cheers,
                            Danny.
                          • David Weinberger
                            Self/blog-promotion is ok on Blogrollers, isn t it? If so: I live-blogged the first Wolfram conference yesterday and will live-blog the morning sessions today.
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 28, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Self/blog-promotion is ok on Blogrollers, isn't it?

                              If so: I live-blogged the first Wolfram conference yesterday and will
                              live-blog the morning sessions today. The entries start here:

                              http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/001700.html

                              And I write here about why I find Wolfram interesting:

                              http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/001701.html

                              If self/blog-promotion isn't ok on this list, then:

                              1. Let me know.

                              2. I won't do it again.

                              3. I'm sorry.


                              -- David W.
                              -----------------------------------------------------------
                              David Weinberger* 'zine: www.hyperorg.com
                              self@... blog: www.hyperorg.com/blogger
                              cluetrain: www.cluetrain.com
                              new book: www.smallpieces.com
                              speaking: www.hyperorg.com/speaker
                              *Elevator statement on file with building supervisor
                            • Dave Winer
                              David, as founder of this list, imho it s totally appropriate. That s what the list is for, back-channel information sharing between weblogs, of exactly this
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 28, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David, as founder of this list, imho it's totally appropriate. That's what the list is for, back-channel information sharing between weblogs, of exactly this ilk. Dave



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.