Comments on: Internal communities where visitors can contribute just like members http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/ sharing ideas thoughts and feedback Mon, 20 May 2013 16:41:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: John Tropea http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32775 Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:57:18 +0000 http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32775 Excellent Miguel, You have noted the advantage for having non-members contribute to a community. But also the disadvantage. What we have to do is weigh up how much of a disadvantage this is. 1. You don't have to be a member to contribute. But you have to be a member to come to meetings about the direction of the community. - if you are a high contributor, but not a member, then bad luck if you don't agree with decisions that are made...otherwise become a member. - this type of community has to be highly facilitated, and we hope it doesn't become too noisy that people leave 2. You can only take part in forums if you are a member, which means you lose out on some potential input from visitors - this is a great opportunity cost, especially if we are promoting knowledge sharing across teams, as we are preventing the sharing from happening (sure they can visit a community and read, but they can't contribute unless they become a member, and they may not really want to be a member...all they want to do is leave a valuable reply and be on their way, and perhaps visit again one day in the future) Excellent Miguel,

You have noted the advantage for having non-members contribute to a community. But also the disadvantage.

What we have to do is weigh up how much of a disadvantage this is.

1. You don’t have to be a member to contribute. But you have to be a member to come to meetings about the direction of the community.
- if you are a high contributor, but not a member, then bad luck if you don’t agree with decisions that are made…otherwise become a member.
- this type of community has to be highly facilitated, and we hope it doesn’t become too noisy that people leave

2. You can only take part in forums if you are a member, which means you lose out on some potential input from visitors
- this is a great opportunity cost, especially if we are promoting knowledge sharing across teams, as we are preventing the sharing from happening (sure they can visit a community and read, but they can’t contribute unless they become a member, and they may not really want to be a member…all they want to do is leave a valuable reply and be on their way, and perhaps visit again one day in the future)

]]> by: Miguel http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32772 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:10:09 +0000 http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32772 Rather agree with your friend... and with Nancy and Matt. First, membership really is a state of mind. So many people register in a community and either never come back, or never care for it, or -worse- write over 800 messages in two years and none of them to help another person. Second, making it easy to make a comment is always good (lowering barriers of entry is the evident start of fostering participation). It may start as a passing comment, continue as a conversation, and end up as a pillar of the community ;-). Third, definitely it would need more moderation. If the barrier is too low, people will comment as on blogs - without caring for the local conversation mores and uses. You will get offtopics, wrong tones, mispostings (wrong place) more frequently. And you'll get flame wars, however polite, because it is always easier to get people wrong writing online. Best of luck with the experiment :), and best regards, Miguel Rather agree with your friend… and with Nancy and Matt.

First, membership really is a state of mind. So many people register in a community and either never come back, or never care for it, or -worse- write over 800 messages in two years and none of them to help another person.

Second, making it easy to make a comment is always good (lowering barriers of entry is the evident start of fostering participation). It may start as a passing comment, continue as a conversation, and end up as a pillar of the community ;-) .

Third, definitely it would need more moderation. If the barrier is too low, people will comment as on blogs - without caring for the local conversation mores and uses. You will get offtopics, wrong tones, mispostings (wrong place) more frequently. And you’ll get flame wars, however polite, because it is always easier to get people wrong writing online.

Best of luck with the experiment :) , and best regards,

Miguel

]]> by: John Tropea http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32760 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:14:06 +0000 http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32760 Hi Nancy and Matt, Thanks for taking the time to comment. My comment back was getting lengthy, so I created a new post. Love to hear your comments. http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/21/community-membership-reinterpreted-online/ Hi Nancy and Matt,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

My comment back was getting lengthy, so I created a new post. Love to hear your comments.

http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/21/community-membership-reinterpreted-online/

]]> by: Matt Moore http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32758 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:22:36 +0000 http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32758 Perspectives: - Openness is relative. If I have a community that discusses "super, double top secret" stuff, then I probably want to control membership strictly. In most internal communities, informal norms, new member guidelines ("read the ****ing FAQ"), etc are enough. - "it ain’t what is used to be" - and it won't be! Communities are dynamic and it's part of our job to work with the older hands to either adapt to the change or start a new group for "indepth" or "expert" discussions on a topic. - Membership is often presented as a binary "yes,no" issue. But there are many levels of engagement/involvement and people move between them. It's probably better to think of it as a I am unhappy with the term "lurker" for this reason. I sometimes wonder if we give people community thermometers: -- I'm so hot for this community right now!!! -- It's good, I'm getting value. -- It's OK, a bit quiet. -- Meh. Perspectives:
- Openness is relative. If I have a community that discusses “super, double top secret” stuff, then I probably want to control membership strictly. In most internal communities, informal norms, new member guidelines (”read the ****ing FAQ”), etc are enough.
- “it ain’t what is used to be” - and it won’t be! Communities are dynamic and it’s part of our job to work with the older hands to either adapt to the change or start a new group for “indepth” or “expert” discussions on a topic.
- Membership is often presented as a binary “yes,no” issue. But there are many levels of engagement/involvement and people move between them. It’s probably better to think of it as a I am unhappy with the term “lurker” for this reason. I sometimes wonder if we give people community thermometers:
— I’m so hot for this community right now!!!
— It’s good, I’m getting value.
— It’s OK, a bit quiet.
— Meh.

]]> by: Nancy White http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32757 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:13:04 +0000 http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/01/19/internal-communities-where-visitors-can-contribute-just-like-members/#comment-32757 It is funny how we define membership online eh? It is a technologically affirmed thing - you have a user name and a password. But isn't membership really a state of mind and an expression of identity, but as "me" and as "we?" Funny, how things are reinterpreted when intermediated by technology, isn't it! It is funny how we define membership online eh? It is a technologically affirmed thing - you have a user name and a password.

But isn’t membership really a state of mind and an expression of identity, but as “me” and as “we?”

Funny, how things are reinterpreted when intermediated by technology, isn’t it!

]]>