Library clips

A lot of people I have spoken to want one place (community) for all discussions about a topic. They are averse to overlapping topic communities, and feel that a conversation in one community should actually be happening in a more appropriate community.

That would be nice, but this is really hard to control. Sure it would be easy for consumption and seeking, everything nice and neat in the one place, but it aint like that, the world’s messy, and so is social computing.

It’s true that social computing is still islands, just like email and documents, you will have blogs and wikis all over the place, and sometimes in the confines of a community.
The point is that it’s not closed silos like email. Instead, being open allows for discovery, conversation, evolving of ideas, re-use, new relationships, collaboration, emergence…knowledge is flowing.

This is the real value, who cares if it’s messy. In fact that’s not even a question, it has to be messy, otherwise it’s not real or authentic.

The fact of the matter is that we participate where and when we feel comfortable, and for self-interest…also in knowing that your network will reciprocate their know-how. Once we form a natural network with people we trust and have an affinity with, knowledge starts flowing like a waterfall.

There’s a lot of human behaviour to consider behind the act of knowledge sharing, and what is needed is to cultivate these conditions for it to happen naturally…if volunteering starts happening, it means the conditions are right. eg. a flower that has enough water and sun, and perhaps appropriate soil and shade.

Quite often people will take part in the individual centric ecosystem of a social network as they can choose who to network with (this makes them feel comfortable and connect with who they like)…just like in the offline world. From this we hope that meeting like people may extend their shared interest into a naturally forming topic hub.

In this respect social networking is similar to the adoption of email and IM, as it’s in tune with human nature…as mentioned before social networks (profiles with blogs, etc…) go farther as they are open, providing discovery, and connections to the rest of the organisation…something email and IM don’t do.

When you think about it, social networks are bottom-up by default!

As for communities, forcing people to talk about a topic within a specific community is not going to be effective, rather it’s about the people first, the topic second…people will only contribute if they feel comfortable.

So you either go with a bottom-up messy approach with lots of participation, or a top-down controlled approach with low participation (but high email traffic to compensate).

Further to this, when we have offline conversations with people it happens everywhere:
- in the coffee room, at my desk, in the elevator, in a meeting, at reception, on the phone

I’m not refrained from talking about a topic because I’m in the coffee room, rather than in a meeting (confidentiality aside)…that’s crazy. I have a thought, or I bump into someone, and we converse about any topic…it doesn’t matter where I am when we have this conversation, what matters is that I’m having it.

Life is messy, and so is online social computing, we converse about a topic in any place…this is a natural happening.

There is a time and a place to have some conversations, but what I’m referring to is being restrained in having a conversation, not because of privacy and sensitivity, but just controlling all conversations about a topic in one area, so it’s easier to keep track of and seek. More precisely only creating one place to have these types of conversations. This obviously doesn’t work in the offline world as we can’t mind control people, and it shouldn’t happen online by controlling spaces to converse in, rather than bottom-up creation of communities, and social networks.

Now in saying this I understand that when I create a blog post I will choose the right community…but there is only so much control you can have of what life offers. If we go off on tangents, then so be it. That’s the beauty of hyperlinks, we can point to stuff that has happened elsewhere. Also the job of a facilitator can re-direct conversations after the fact, kind of like a groundskeeper.

To conclude it’s not about doing away with islands, it’s about creating conditions for conversation to happen out in the open, and they may happen in places where you least expect it. I could have a conversation about “social computing” lining up for tickets to the cinema. The important part is that these conversations are happening.

People that want to know all information on a topic will have a hard time here, but the only way is to jump in and build a network, from then on your trust filter will bring you treats, and vice versa.

And we always have search, but it’s more relevant when it’s filtered through your network.

I guess the answer to enterprise awareness, is natural flowing participation, and the more you participate and network, the more you will find what you want, in fact you start a path without realising