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

RE: [blogrollers] New social software blog

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.