Αναζήτηση αυτού του ιστολογίου

Παρασκευή 29 Ιανουαρίου 2010

Professional culture of traditional journalism prevents developing most of the ideals of interactivity


Findings suggest that the professional culture of traditional journalism has a strong inertia in the online newsrooms that prevents them from developing most of the ideals of interactivity, as they do not fit in the standardized news production routines.


This article analyzes interactivity in online journalism as a powerful myth with which journalists have to deal in their daily work.

A constructivist approach to media innovation is used to explore the historical origins of the myth that predicted interactivity would change journalism and to confront it with the actual practices of online media projects through published empirical research and four case studies selected from an average European regional market. The analysis of the cases is based on ethnography of online newsrooms working routines and in-depth interviews with reporters, editors and web developers. The actual role of the myth of interactivity in shaping the development of these four online news projects is discussed taking into account the material and organizational context of the newsrooms. 

Findings suggest that the professional culture of traditional journalism has a strong inertia in the online newsrooms that prevents them from developing most of the ideals of interactivity, as they do not fit in the standardized news production routines.

SOURCE: Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: dealing with an uncomfortable myth
David Domingo
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 680–704 ª 2008 International Communication Association
Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: dealing with an uncomfortable myth

Πέμπτη 28 Ιανουαρίου 2010

How to start a blog and stick to it!


1. Use a blogging software - tumblr - blogger - wordpress.
2. Start Writing! There is no real “one way” to do this. Most people just write whatever comes to their minds and eventually find a style that works for them.
3. Practice Your Voice. When talking about your “voice” in writing, this is your personality coming through your writing.
4. Link Back. It’s net etiquette to link to the people you mention or get a story idea from.
5. Be Consistent.
If you have a schedule, do your best to stick to it.
6. Stick To Your Guns. Do your best to write for yourself first. Of course you need to be careful with your words, but don’t be afraid to ruffle feathers every once in a while.
7. Have Fun. This is the most important rule. Writing should be fun and if and or when it does become a chore, take a break or better yet get some posts together and set them up to post up at a later date and then take a week off.


In the end, blogging is what you make of it. You can change things to fit your need and write about what you want. Some have made it into a career but if you focus on just having fun and sharing your experiences, it can go a long way to adding to the comic book blogging community.

Adapted from http://comicbooks.about.com/od/cultureofcomics/a/comicblog.htm


Use storyboards to visualise ideas from brainstorming

Storyboards are graphic organizers such as a series of illustrations or images displayed in sequence for the purpose of pre-visualizing a motion picture, animation, motion graphic or interactive media sequence, including website interactivity.

Storyboard is a place to plan out your digital story in two dimensions.

The first dimension is time: what happens first, next, and last.
The second is of interaction: how does the voiceover (your story) interact with the images, how do visual transitions and effects help tie together the images, how does the voiceover interact with the musical soundtrack? Any element can interact with any other one, and the storyboard is the place to plan out the impact you intend to make on the audience. Since this is a tutorial, we'll sketch out a storyboard using only the images, voiceover, and soundtrack. An experienced digital storyteller would have some idea of what transitions and effects might be appropriate at the early storyboarding stage, but we'll leave that step for later.


One advantage of using storyboards is that it allows (in film and business) the user to experiment with changes in the storyline to evoke stronger reaction or interest. Flashbacks, for instance, are often the result of sorting storyboards out of chronological order to help build suspense and interest.

The process of visual thinking and planning allows a group of people to brainstorm together, placing their ideas on storyboards and then arranging the storyboards on the wall. This fosters more ideas and generates consensus inside the group.

STORYBOARDING "A RECIPE"
STORYBOARD EXAMPLE



Use brainstorming in searching for a core concept


1. Don't stop and discuss. Go for quantity, not quality. Keep the momentum going.
2. Withhold criticism.
3. Welcome unusual ideas. Challenge assumptions. Go crazy. The wilder the ideas the better.
4. Combine and improve ideas.


Osborn, A.F. (1963)
Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving
(Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.


There are four basic rules in brainstorming.These are intended to reduce social inhibitions among groups members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group.

1. Don't stop and discuss. Go for quantity, not quality. Keep the momentum going. This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim, quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.

2. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.

3. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions.
Challenge assumptions. Be creative. Go crazy. The wilder the ideas the better.

4. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.


GGA

Although brainstorming has become a popular group technique, researchers have not found evidence of its effectiveness for enhancing either quantity or quality of ideas generated.
Traditional brainstorming may not increase the productivity of groups (as measured by the number of ideas generated), but it may still provide benefits, such as boosting morale, enhancing work enjoyment, and improving team work.

GGA





Τετάρτη 27 Ιανουαρίου 2010

Think about Genres - old and new

Genres - a working definition

•    A Genre, is a relatively stable, expectable form of communication
•    Genres are addressed to particular communities and fit into particular activities in the lives of that community's members.


•    "In da Bginnin God cre8d da heavens & da earth.
Da earth waz barren, wit no 4m of life;
it waz unda a roaring ocean cuvred wit dRkness"
[SMS Bible]


•    ".. most films that you see are photographs of people talking;
they're not pure cinema by any means."   
[Alfred Hitchcock]

Cross-media creation process


•    Explore and evolve the CORE concept
•    Assign team roles
•    Generate ideas and scenarios in words and images
•    Develop a masterplan or overall conceptual framework
•    Assign tasks
•    Iterate and evaluate the concept and the communication of the story to the target audience
•    Proceed with Production
•    Measure outcome


Adapted from A course at Central Saint Martin's College of Art and Design on Narrative Environments

Cross-media project as creation of a Narrative Environment

•    A narrative environment is a space, whether physical or virtual, in which stories can unfold.
•    A physical narrative environment might be an exhibition area within a museum, or a foyer of a retail space, or the public spaces around a building - anywhere in short where stories can be told in space.
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Κοινωνικά Μέσα και Διακίνηση Περιεχομένου που Δημιουργείται Από Χρήστες


Το Περιεχομένου που Δημιουργείται από Χρήστες είναι προσβάσιμο μέσα από διαφορετικά δικτυακά πληροφοριακά συστήματα (πλατφόρμες) τα κυριότερα των οποίων είναι  τα Ιστολόγια, τα Wiki και τα Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα (social networks).

Μια άλλη σειρά από πλατφόρμες εξειδικεύονται στη δημοσίευση και ανταλλαγή βίντεο (όπως το YouTube), φωτογραφιών (όπως το Flickr) και ηχητικού περιεχομένου (podcasts ή streaming).

Το ιστολόγιο (blog) είναι μια ειδική μορφή ιστότοπου με καταχωρήσεις (postings) από εξουσιοδοτημένους υπεύθυνους (bloggers) και δυνατότητα σχολιασμού (comments) από κάθε αναγνώστη είτε χωρίς περιορισμό ή με προκαθορισμένους περιορισμούς.
 Η αρχική δημιουργία ενός ιστολογίου γίνεται μέ σύνδεση σε ειδικούς ιστότοπους (όπως το www.blogspot.com) και δεν απαιτεί ειδικές γνώσεις πέραν της χρήσης απλού φυλλομετρητή (browser). Ο δημιουργός του ιστολογίου αποκαλείται blogger και έχει την ευθύνη συντήρησης του Ιστολογίου, η οποία επίσης δεν απαιτεί ειδικές γνώσεις και γίνεται μέσω του ιστότοπου του Ιστολογίου με χρήση απλού φυλλομετρητή (browser). Το εξειδικευμένο λογισμικό που επιτρέπει σε απλούς χρήστες να δημιουργούν, να ενημερώνουν και να τα συντηρούν ένα ιστολόγιο δεν εγκαθίσταται στον υπολογιστή. Η δομή των ιστολογίων είναι προκαθορισμένη και δεν προσαρμόζεται από το χρήστη. Η μορφή της δομής  είναι αυστηρά χρονολογική με τις πιο πρόσφατες προσθήκες να εμφανίζονται πρώτες. Βασική μονάδα είναι η "καταχώρηση" (posting) και όχι η "σελίδα" (web page). Κάθε καταχώρηση έχει δικό της μόνιμο σύνδεσμο (permalink) και επιτρέπει σύνδεση της με ανάλογη καταχώρηση σε κάποιο άλλο Ιστολόγιο ή άλλο ιστότοπο. Το σύνολο των ιστολογίων αποτελούν την "μπλογκόσφαιρα" (blogosphere). Οι καταχωρήσεις και τα σχόλια που αναφέρονται σε ένα θέμα συνδέονται μεταξύ τους με τα permalinks και η συζήτηση σε ένα θέμα επεκτείνεται στο σύνολο της μπλογκόσφαιρας – από καταχώρηση σε καταχώρηση και όχι από σελίδα σε σελίδα.


Το Wiki  είναι ένας τύπος ιστοτόπου συνεργατικής συγγραφής που επιτρέπει σε οποιονδήποτε να δημιουργήσει και να επεξεργαστεί τις σελίδες του. Η δημιουργία και συντήρηση των σελίδων γίνεται μέσω εξειδικευμένων ιστότοπων όπως το el.wikipedia.org . Η συγγραφή  δεν απαιτεί ειδικές τεχνικές γνώσεις πέραν της χρήσης απλού φυλλομετρητή (browser). Σε ένα wiki, διάφορα άτομα μπορούν να γράφουν συλλογικά ένα ενιαίο κείμενο. Αν ένα άτομο κάνει κάποιο λάθος, το επόμενο μπορεί να το διορθώσει. Mπορεί επίσης να προσθέσει κάτι νέο στη σελίδα, πράγμα που επιτρέπει τη συνεχή βελτίωση και ενημέρωση. Η επεξεργασία της σελίδας γίνεται με επιλογή της καρτέλας "επεξεργασία" στην σελίδα του άρθρου. Εκεί εμφανίζεται το άρθρο σε ένα επεξεργαστή κειμένου. Η διεύθυνση IP αυτού που επεξεργάζεται το άρθρο καταγράφεται και θα είναι ορατή δημόσια, μαζί με την ημέρα και την ώρα, στο ιστορικό επεξεργασίας της σελίδας. Ορισμένες φορές μπορεί να είναι δυνατό να αναγνωριστεί ο συγγραφέας από αυτές τις πληροφορίες. Απαγορεύεται η ανάρτηση υλικού που παραβιάζει τα δικαιώματα πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας οποιουδήποτε τρίτου και την ευθύνη φέρει αποκλειστικά ο χρήστης που το αναρτά. Οποιοδήποτε περιεχόμενο πρέπει να είναι επαληθεύσιμο από αξιόπιστες πηγές. Όλες οι συνεισφορές υπόκεινται στην Άδεια Ελεύθερης Τεκμηρίωσης GNU.

Τα Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα (social networks) είναι υπηρεσίες για συνεχή επικοινωνία μεταξύ παλιών φίλων και δημιουργία νέων φίλων δηλώνοντας την ταυτότητά τους (profile) και χρησιμοποιώντας μια πληθώρα εφαρμογών για την εξεύρεση άλλων μελών με τα ίδια ενδιαφέροντα και αξίες και παρακολούθηση των δραστηριοτήτων τους. Ως κοινωνικά δίκτυα ανθρώπων στηρίζονται στην  στόμα-με-στόμα επικοινωνία. Οι εφαρμογές επιτρέπουν το μοίρασμα περιεχομένου κάθε είδους μεταξύ φίλων, παλαιών και νέων που μπορεί να αντλείται τόσο από προσωπικές πηγές εκτός δικτύου όσο και από κάθε είδους περιεχόμενο που δημοσιεύεται στο διαδίκτυο ή εκτός. Σε συνδυασμό με τα ιστολόγια οι υπηρεσίες κοινωνικών δικτύων (όπως το FaceBook και το MySpace) αποτελούν τον κορμό του Συμμετοχικού Ιστού καθώς ευνοούν την παρορμητική συνομιλία.

Τα Wiki και οι υπηρεσίες ανταλλαγής φωτογραφιών, βίντεο και ηχητικού περιεχομένου απαιτούν από τους δημιουργούς κάποια προεργασία και ωθούν σε περισσότερο δομημένο διάλογο ενώ ενισχύουν τη συζήτηση στα ιστολόγια και τα κοινωνικά δίκτυα τεκμηριώνοντας και παρέχοντας πρώτη ύλη για συζητήσεις.  



OECD (2007), Participative Web And User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis And Social Networking

Κοινωνικά Μέσα και Περιεχόμενο που Δημιουργείται από Χρήστες

Δεν υπάρχει γενικά αποδεκτός ορισμός του Περιεχομένου που Δημιουργείται από Χρήστες. 

Η μελέτη του Οργανισμού για την Οικονομική Συνεργασία & Ανάπτυξη (OECD) "Συμμετοχικός Ιστό και το Περιεχόμενο που δημιουργείται από Χρήστες" δίνει τον ακόλουθο ορισμό:

•    1. Περιεχόμενο που δημοσιεύεται ελεύθερα στο Διαδίκτυο,
•    2. αντανακλά σε ένα βαθμό μια προσπάθεια δημιουργικότητας και
•    3. δημιουργείται εκτός επαγγελματικών προτύπων και πρακτικών."

(OECD, 2007)

Παραδείγματα Ειδών Περιεχομένου που Δημιουργείται από Χρήστες

Οι χρήστες δημιουργούν διαφορετικά είδη "κειμένων" όπως γραπτός λόγος, φωτογραφίες, εικόνες και σχέδια, ηχητικά και μουσική,  βίντεο και ταινίες.

Ο γραπτός λόγος περιλαμβάνει σχόλια, δημοσιογραφική έρευνα, δοκίμια, μυθοπλασία, ποίηση.

Οι φωτογραφίες γενικά έχουν ληφθεί με ψηφιακές φωτογραφικές μηχανές. Μπορεί να έχουν υποστεί επεξεργασία από ειδικό λογισμικό ή να προέρχονται από σάρωση αναλογικής φωτογραφίας, επεξεργασίας με λογισμικό ίσως και σύνθεσης με άλλες φωτογραφίες.

Το ηχητικό περιεχόμενο που διατίθεται στο Διαδίκτυο ποικίλει από αυθεντική μουσική ή τραγούδια ως επεξεργασία και μίξη (remix), ραδιοφωνικής μορφής εκπομπές ή ομιλίες που διατίθενται μέσω ραδιοφωνικού τύπου εκπομπές (streaming ή podcasting).

Το περιεχόμενο βίντεο στην πλειοψηφία του αποτελείται από ερασιτεχνικές καταγραφές στιγμιότυπων και ερασιτεχνικά ντοκιμαντέρ (home videos) ή επεξεργασία και μίξη αποσπασμάτων από έτοιμο υλικό τρίτων (συχνά εμπορικό) δημιουργώντας πχ. παρωδίες διαφημιστικών (remixes).

Η υβριδική μορφή περιεχομένου περιλαμβάνει συνδυασμό ερασιτεχνικού και έτοιμου εμπορικού περιεχομένου. Το περιεχόμενο βίντεο που δημιουργούν χρήστες διατίθεται μέσω μεγάλου αριθμού εξειδικευμένων ιστοτόπων και δικτυακών υπηρεσιών όπως το YouTube. (OECD, 2007)



OECD (2007), Participative Web And User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis And Social Networking

Η Εγγραμματοσύνη των Μέσων ως προαπαιτούμενο για την παραγωγή κάθε είδους περιεχομένου.


Η Εγγραμματοσύνη των Μέσων (media literacy) είναι το αποτέλεσμα της ενασχόλησης του φοιτητή με
•    την παραγωγή σε πραγματικές συνθήκες,
•    τελειωμένων μηνυμάτων
•    ανεξάρτητα από το πλαίσιο παραγωγής
    
    όπου πλαίσιο παραγωγής
αναφέρεται
     o    σε διαφορετικά μέσα (έντυπα, ηλεκτρονικά, Συμμετοχικός Ιστός),
     o    σε διαφορετικούς αποδέκτες και
     o    με διαφορετικούς σκοπούς

Η Εγγραμματοσύνη των Μέσων είναι αναγκαία για την αποτελεσματική συμμετοχή σε πρωτοβουλίες που αξιοποιούν τις δυνατότητες που παρέχει ο Συμμετοχικός Ιστός. 

Ή εγγράμματη κατάσταση νοείται συνήθως ως «μια ατομική δεξιότητα, η εκμάθηση ή απόκτηση εκ μέρους ενός ατόμου μίας ουδέτερης ‘τέχνης’, μίας απλής ‘τεχνολογίας’, ενός αδρανούς ‘εργαλείου» επικοινωνίας: της γραφής (και μάλιστα της αλφαβητικής) και της ανάγνωσης.» H εγγραμματοσύνη (literacy) όμως αποτελεί και έναν κατεξοχήν κοινωνικό θεσμό, ένα περίπλοκο φαινόμενο πού συνδέει και συνδυάζει πολλαπλές πολιτισμικές, κοινωνικές, ιστορικές και γνωστικές πλευρές. (Παραδέλλης,1997).


Η Εγγραμματοσύνη των Μέσων είναι αναγκαία λόγω της σύγκλισης των τεχνολογιών και προαπαιτεί τόσο την Κλασσική, όσο την Οπτικοακουστική και την  Πληροφορική Εγγραμματοσύνη.

•    Η Κλασσική Εγγραμματοσύνη αφορά στην ανάγνωση, την γραφή και την κατανόηση.
•    Η Οπτικοακουστική Εγγραμματοσύνη αφορά στα Μέσα όπου οι ήχοι και οι εικόνες παρουσιάζονται μόνον γραμμικά και σε σταθερή αλληλουχία όπως ο κινηματογράφος και τα παραδοσιακά ηλεκτρονικά μέσα επικοινωνίας (αναλογικό ραδιόφωνο  και  αναλογική τηλεόραση).
•    Η  Πληροφορική  Εγγραμματοσύνη αφορά στους υπολογιστές και στα νέα Ψηφιακά Μέσα με έμφαση στην τεχνική πλευρά της δημιουργίας όπως η χρήση υπολογιστών και ψηφιακών συσκευών για την σύλληψη, επεξεργασία και διανομή ήχων και εικόνων.

 
•    Η Εγγραμματοσύνη των Μέσων σύμφωνα με μία από τις προβεβλημένες  ερευνήτριες του χώρου Sonia Livingston αποτελεί την σύνθεση της Κλασσικής και Οπτικοακουστικής Εγγραμματοσύνης με την Πληροφορική Εγγραμματοσύνη. 



ΠΗΓΕΣ
•     Παραδέλλης Θ., (1997), Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνική Έκδοση του: Walter J. Ong, Προφορικότητα και Εγγραμματοσύνη – Η εκτεχνολόγηση του λόγου, Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης
•    EU Commission (2007),  Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona ,  "Current trends and approaches to media literacy in Europe", ανακτηθέν την  05/06/08 (http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/media_literacy/docs/studies/study.pdf)
•    Livingstone, S. “What is media literacy?” Media@else, (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/What_is_media_literacy.doc )
•    Reding, V. (2006), Επίτροπος ΕΕ Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας, Δελτίο Τύπου IP/06 /1326, Βρυξέλλες 6/10/2006  


Τρίτη 26 Ιανουαρίου 2010

Web 1.0 Criteria for Quality in Information--Checklist

Criteria for Quality in Information--Checklist

 

 Scope of Coverage

Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics.
Tip: When seeking information about the scope of coverage of a database, look for dates and information about excluded materials. Does the database cover the period of time of interest to you? Does it exclude select articles because of copyright licensing issues?
 

 Authority

Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information.
Tip: Authors recognized as experts amongst their peers are usually cited and reviewed in the literature. If a source claims official status (e.g., the House of Representatives is the official publisher of the U.S. Code), you should be able to verify the claim.
 

 Objectivity

Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyzes facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, it's reason for providing the information and advertising.
Tip: All writing, except for the dissemination of pure facts, contains a certain amount of bias. Does the source provide a balanced point of view? Does the author want to influence change? Is the advertising influencing the content?
 

 Accuracy

Accuracy describes information that is factually irrefutable and complete. Consider the editing and publishing policy of the source. Is it peer-reviewed? Does it fact-check before publishing?
Tip: You should be able to verify factually correct information. Are there two or more reliable sources that provide the same information?
 

 Timeliness

Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page.
Tip: The information provided might have been current at the time it was published. Can you establish the publication date? Does the revision date cover changes in content or aesthetic revisions only?

Παρασκευή 22 Ιανουαρίου 2010

Disruptive innovation

Christensen distinguishes between 
  • "low-end disruption" which targets customers who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high-end of the market and 
  • "new-market disruption" which targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved by existing incumbents.


History and usage of the term
 

The term disruptive technology was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave, which he coauthored with Joseph Bower. The purpose of the book is aimed at managing executives who make the funding/purchasing decisions in companies rather than the research community. He describes the term further in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma. 
In his sequel, The Innovator's Solution, Christensen replaced disruptive technology with the term disruptive innovation because he recognized that few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character. It is the strategy or business model that the technology enables that creates the disruptive impact. 
The concept of disruptive technology continues a long tradition of the identification of radical technical change in the study of innovation by economists, and the development of tools for its management at a firm or policy level.

The theory


How low-end disruption occurs over time.
 

Christensen distinguishes between 
  • "low-end disruption" which targets customers who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high-end of the market and 
  • "new-market disruption" which targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved by existing incumbents.
"Low-end disruption" occurs when the rate at which products improve exceeds the rate at which customers can adopt the new performance. Therefore, at some point the performance of the product overshoots the needs of certain customer segments. At this point, a disruptive technology may enter the market and provide a product which has lower performance than the incumbent but which exceeds the requirements of certain segments, thereby gaining a foothold in the market.

In low-end disruption, the disruptor is focused initially on serving the least profitable customer, who is happy with a good enough product. This type of customer is not willing to pay premium for enhancements in product functionality. 


Once the disruptor has gained foot hold in this customer segment, it seeks to improve its profit margin. To get higher profit margins, the disruptor needs to enter the segment where the customer is willing to pay a little more for higher quality. To ensure this quality in its product, the disruptor needs to innovate. 

The incumbent will not do much to retain its share in a not so profitable segment, and will move up-market and focus on its more attractive customers. After a number of such encounters, the incumbent is squeezed into smaller markets than it was previously serving. And then finally the disruptive technology meets the demands of the most profitable segment and drives the established company out of the market.
 

"New market disruption" occurs when a product fits a new or emerging market segment that is not being served by existing incumbents in the industry. The Linux operating system (OS) when introduced was inferior in performance to other server operating systems like Unix and Windows NT. But the Linux OS is inexpensive compared to other server operating systems. After years of improvements it threatens to displace the leading commercial UNIX distributions.


Web 2.0 Meme Map


What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O'Reilly, 09/30/2005
Read this article in:  http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Web 1.0 / Web 2.0 / Web 3.0 Cultures

Συζήτηση Περασμένης Δεκαετίας


Web 1.0 –  ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ  και ΕΝΑΣ/ΠΟΛΛΟΙ – ΠΡΟΣ – ΠΟΛΛΟΥΣ –
 «Read Only Web”

•    Στόχος οι 45 εκατ. Χρήστες (1996)
•    Εστίαση στις Εταιρίες και Οργανισμούς
•    Έτοιμο περιεχόμενο προς «ανάγνωση»
•    Ιστοσελίδες και Πόρταλ
•    Περιεχόμενο : Ιδιόκτητο παραγόμενο κυρίως από επαγγελματίες
•    Συντακτική Ευθύνη του «Ιδιοκτήτη»
•    Οργάνωση : Ταξινόμηση σε πάγιες κατηγορίες


Συζήτηση Τωρινής Δεκαετίας


Web 2.0 –  ΣΥΝΟΜΙΛΙΑ  και e-ΣΤΟΜΑ-ΜΕ-ΣΤΟΜΑ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ –
«Read Write Web”

•    Στόχος οι 1 δισεκ.  Χρήστες (2006)
•    Εστίαση στις Κοινότητες Χρηστών
•    Εφαρμογές για δημιουργία περιεχόμενου από χρήστες
•    Μπλόγκ και Wikipedia
•    Περιεχόμενο :  Κοινόκτητο
•    Συντακτική Ευθύνη: Διαμοιραζόμενη στην κοινότητα
•    Οργάνωση : Φολκσονόμηση με ελεύθερα tags


Συζήτηση Αρχών της Επόμενης Δεκαετίας


Web 3.0 –  ΦΟΡΗΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΙΚΟΣ ΙΣΤΟΣ και ΣΗΜΑΣΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΣ ΙΣΤΟΣ –

«Portable PersonalWeb”
•    Στόχος το μεμονωμένο άτομο

•    Εστίαση στην καθημερινή ροή του βίου του
•    Drag and Drop Mashups –iGoogle & NetVibes
•    Περιεχόμενο:  Σύνολο του Σημασιολογικού Ιστού
•    Δυναμική Συνάθροιση Περιεχομένου
•    Συντακτική Ευθύνη : μη καταλογιστέα – συνομιλία «μηχανών» Σημασιολογικού Ιστού
•    Οργάνωση : Αυτόματα μέσα από την ενεργό εμπλοκή του χρήστη 


ΓΓΑ. Ιούλιος 2009

A Speculative Post on the Idea of Algorithmic Authority - Clay Shirky


  • Algorithmic authority is
    the decision to regard as authoritative

    an unmanaged process of extracting value
    from diverse, untrustworthy sources,
    without any human standing beside the result saying “Trust this because you trust me.” 

    • This model of authority differs from personal or institutional authority.

  • The social characteristic of deciding who to trust is a key feature of authority.

    • There’s a spectrum of authority from
      “Good enough to settle a bar bet” to
      “Evidence to include in a dissertation defense”

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/11/a-speculative-post-on-the-idea-of-algorithmic-authority/

Jack Balkin invited me to be on a panel yesterday at Yale’s Information Society Project conference, Journalism & The New Media Ecology, and I used my remarks to observe that one of the things up for grabs in the current news environment is the nature of authority. 

In particular, I noted that people trust new classes of aggregators and filters, whether Google or Twitter or Wikipedia (in its ‘breaking news’ mode.)

I called this tendency algorithmic authority. 

I hadn’t used that phrase before yesterday, so it’s not well worked out (and I didn’t coin it — as Jeff Jarvis noted at the time, Google lists a hundred or so previous occurrences.) There’s a lot to be said on the subject, but as a placeholder for a well-worked-out post, I wanted to offer a rough and ready definition here.
As this is the first time I’ve written about this idea, this a bit of a ramble. I’ll take on authority briefly, then add the importance of algorithms.
Khotyn is a small town in Moldova. That is a piece of information about Eastern European geography, and one that could be right or could be wrong. You’ve probably never heard of Khotyn, so you have to decide if you’re going to take my word for it. (The “it” you’d be taking my word for is your belief that Khotyn is a town in Moldova.)
Do you trust me? You don’t have much to go on, and you’d probably fall back on social judgement — do other people vouch for my knowledge of European geography and my likelihood to tell the truth? Some of these social judgments might be informal — do other people seem to trust me? — while others might be formal — do I have certification from an institution that will vouch for my knowledge of Eastern Europe? These groups would in turn have to seem trustworthy for you to accept their judgment of me. (It’s turtles all the way down.)

The social characteristic of deciding who to trust is a key feature of authority — were you to say “I have it on good authority that Khotyn is a town in Moldova”, you’d be saying that you trust me to know and disclose that information accurately, not just because you trust me, but because some other group has vouched, formally or informally, for my trustworthiness.
This is a compressed telling, and swerves around many epistemological potholes, such as information that can’t be evaluated independently (”I love you”), information that is correct by definition (”The American Psychiatric Association says there is a mental disorder called psychosis”), or authorities making untestable propositions (”God hates it when you eat shrimp.”) Even accepting those limits, though, the assertion that Khotyn is in Moldova provides enough of an illustration here, because it’s false. Khotyn is in Ukraine.
And this is where authority begins to work its magic. If you told someone who knew better about the Moldovan town of Khotyn, and they asked where you got that incorrect bit of information, you’d have to say “Some guy on the internet said so.” See how silly you’d feel?
Now imagine answering that question “Well, Encyclopedia Britannica said so!” You wouldn’t be any less wrong, but you’d feel less silly. (Britannica did indeed wrongly assert, for years, that Khotyn was in Moldova, one of a collection of mistakes discovered in 2005 by a boy in London.) Why would you feel less silly getting the same wrong information from Britannica than from me? Because Britannica is an authoritative source.
Authority thus performs a dual function; looking to authorities is a way of increasing the likelihood of being right, and of reducing the penalty for being wrong. An authoritative source isn’t just a source you trust; it’s a source you and other members of your reference group trust together. This is the non-lawyer’s version of “due diligence”; it’s impossible to be right all the time, but it’s much better to be wrong on good authority than otherwise, because if you’re wrong on good authority, it’s not your fault.
(As an aside, the existence of sources everyone accepts can be quite pernicious — in the US, the ratings agencies Moodys, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch did more than any other group of institutions to bring the global financial system to the brink of ruin, by debauching their assertions to investors about the riskiness of synthetic assets. Those investors accepted the judgement of the ratings agencies because everyone else was too. Like everything social, this is not a problem with a solution, just a dilemma with various equilibrium states, each of which in turn has characteristic disadvantages.)

Algorithmic authority is the decision to regard as authoritative an unmanaged process of extracting value from diverse, untrustworthy sources, without any human standing beside the result saying “Trust this because you trust me.” This model of authority differs from personal or institutional authority, and has, I think, three critical characteristics.

First, it takes in material from multiple sources, which sources themselves are not universally vetted for their trustworthiness, and it combines those sources in a way that doesn’t rely on any human manager to sign off on the results before they are published. This is how Google’s PageRank algorithm works, it’s how Twitscoop’s zeitgeist measurement works, it’s how Wikipedia’s post hoc peer review works. At this point, its just an information tool.
Second, it produces good results, and as a consequence people come to trust it. At this point, it’s become a valuable information tool, but not yet anything more.

The third characteristic is when people become aware not just of their own trust but of the trust of others: “I use Wikipedia all the time, and other members of my group do as well.” Once everyone in the group has this realization, checking Wikipedia is tantamount to answering the kinds of questions Wikipedia purports to answer, for that group. This is the transition to algorithmic authority.

As the philosopher John Searle describes social facts, they rely on the formulation X counts as Y in C — in this case, Wikipedia comes to count as an acceptable source of answers for a particular group.

There’s a spectrum of authority from “Good enough to settle a bar bet” to “Evidence to include in a dissertation defense”, and most uses of algorithmic authority right now cluster around the inebriated end of that spectrum, but the important thing is that it is a spectrum, that algorithmic authority is on it, and that current forces seem set to push it further up the spectrum to an increasing number and variety of groups that regard these kinds of sources as authoritative.

There are people horrified by this prospect, but the criticism that Wikipedia, say, is not an “authoritative source” is an attempt to end the debate by hiding the fact that authority is a social agreement, not a culturally independent fact. Authority is as a authority does.
It’s also worth noting that algorithmic authority isn’t tied to digital data or even late-model information tools. The design of Wikileaks and Citizendium and Apache all use human vetting by actors prized for their expertise as a key part of the process. What seems important is that the decision to trust Google search, say, can’t be explained as a simple extension of previous models. (Whereas the old Yahoo directory model was, specifically, an institutional model, and one that failed at scale.)

As more people come to realize that not only do they look to unsupervised processes for answers to certain questions, but that their friends do as well, those groups will come to treat those resources as authoritative. Which means that, for those groups, they will be authoritative, since there’s no root authority to construct from. (I lied before. It’s not turtles all the way down; its a network of inter-referential turtles.)

Now there are boundary problems with this definition, of course; we trust spreadsheet tools to handle large data sets we can’t inspect by eye, and we trust scientific results in part because of the scientific method. Also, although Wikipedia doesn’t ask you to trust particular contributors, it is not algorithmic in the same way PageRank is. As a result, the name may be better replaced by something else.

But the core of the idea is this: algorithmic authority handles the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” problem by accepting the garbage as an input, rather than trying to clean the data first; it provides the output to the end user without any human supervisor checking it at the penultimate step; and these processes are eroding the previous institutional monopoly on the kind of authority we are used to in a number of public spheres, including the sphere of news.


Πέμπτη 21 Ιανουαρίου 2010

Θα πρέπει να χρησικοποιούμε κοινή γλώσσα στα ακόλουθα :


• Σύγκλιση Τεχνολογιών – υπόβαθρο μεταβολών
• Μεταβολές στην Οικολογία των Μέσων Επικοινωνίας ως προς την Τεχνολογία – παράγοντες, τάσεις και προβλέψεις
• Μεταβολές στην Οικολογία των Μέσων Επικοινωνίας ως προς το Επιχειρηματικό Μοντέλο – μεταβολές στην ισορροπία μεταξύ παραγόντων της αγοράς
• Μεταβολές στη μορφή του Περιεχομένου – νέα είδη (genres) αξιοποιώντας δυνατότητες νέων τεχνολογιών σε δραστηριότητες καταναλωτών – αναπροσαρμογή.
• Μεταβολές στο Περιεχόμενο ως προς τον Τρόπο (modality) και προδιαγραφές Προσβασιμότητας.
• Αναγκαίες προσαρμογές στην Διαδικασία Παραγωγής Περιεχομένου – αξιοποίηση πολλαπλών πόρων.


ΜΕ ΒΑΣΗ ΟΛΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΕΣ ΠΤΥΧΕΣ ΤΟΥΣ (ΤΕΧΝΟΛΟΓΙΚΕΣ αλλά και ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΕΣ, ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΕΣ, ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΚΕΣ, ΝΟΜΙΚΕΣ, ΑΤΟΜΙΚΗΣ ΨΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΑΣ, ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΤΙΚΕΣ κα. θα προχωρήσουμε στην διαρκή συζήτηση σχετικά με τις:


• Αναγκαίες αλλαγές στον Ρόλο Εργαζομένων στο σύνολο της διαδικασίας - νέες ειδικότητες, επανεκπαίδευση, επανακατάρτιση.


Απαραίτητη είναι η Τυποποίηση της Περιγραφής Τεχνολογίας, Επιχειρηματικού Μοντέλου, Ειδών Περιεχομένου, και Τρόπου (modality) με αναφορά σε Πρότυπα όπως το MPEG-7, το P/META, και το ESCORT 4.2

Devices and Distraction in College Classrooms



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Apostolopoulos <ggapostolopoulos@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/1/21
Subject:
To: ggapostolopoulosmediame@blogger.com



Through their behavior, some students are telling us that they feel neither the need nor the desire to pay close attention to the instructor during some classes. Generally speaking, this is nothing new.

 

 

Devices and Distraction in College Classrooms

 

Laptops and other mobile devices have great potential to enhance and transform instruction and are being used effectively in many college classrooms.5 Today's students use their devices in class to take notes, access materials and applications, and find relevant information. When all students in a classroom can access networked tools simultaneously, many collaborative learning and just-in-time teaching opportunities emerge.

 

There is a dark side to the presence of personal, networked devices in class, however—when students use them to engage in activities unrelated to coursework.

 

Students have always found ways, other than listening to the instructor, to pass the time during class. Crossword puzzles, doodling, and daydreams have occupied students' minds during more classes than we care to admit. At first glance, it appears that the wireless laptop, PDA, iPod, and cellular phone are simply the crossword puzzles of today's college classrooms. As suggested by the comments below, however, the issue is more complex. Yesterday's students did not have 24 Χ 7 online access to all of the content presented during a typical lecture-based class, did not find the crossword puzzle being tackled by the student sitting next to them particularly distracting, and were not themselves as tempted by a crossword puzzle as by instant messaging or an immersive online game. In addition, a handful of students in a large lecture hall working on crossword puzzles did not change the physical environment for instructors:

 

When a teacher is up there reading his slides and I can go home and look at them later, Solitaire can be a temptation—let alone my e-mail messages that I'm checking. It's kind of a blunt truth, but sitting in the back of the classroom, it's not just me. You look around and all you see is Solitaire, e-mail.6

 

 

The computers interfere with making eye contact. You've got this picket fence between you and the students.7

 

In addition to the sensory richness of Web sites and online games, today's mobile devices convey social information, one of the most powerful targets of attention. We seem particularly attuned to this information, whether studying people's faces and body movements or listening to people talk. In addition, the software applications used to mediate communication are designed to grab the user's attention. Microsoft MSN Messenger, a popular instant messaging client, provides a visible and audible signal when a member of your buddy list starts the application and when a message is received. It has a "nudge" feature that presents a distinctive sound and animation when you want to attract the attention of a buddy, shaking the messaging window back and forth on the buddy's screen. It has a "wink" feature that allows you to send animations to a buddy, such as the large set of knuckles illustrated in Figure 1 that appear to rap on the inside of your buddy's screen. Even if students make every effort to pay attention to the instructor, instant messaging applications are designed to capture their attention, and the social information conveyed is probably too alluring for most students to ignore.

 

To better understand the potential of today's mobile devices to distract students, it may be helpful to review some of the basic principles of attention.8 Attention is perhaps best represented not as a single process but as an organized set of procedures through which we select specific environmental stimuli or inputs for cognitive processing.9 It is commonly held that only one input is processed consciously. This could be called the attended input. All other environmental stimuli (for example, background noise, the temperature of the room) are processed unconsciously. These are the unattended inputs. Unconscious monitoring detects changes in inputs to which we are not attending consciously, but that might be important. What constitutes an important change is probably determined by another process, referred to here as the attention controller, which may push the information into conscious awareness.10 This might result in the selection of a new attended input, a shift in attention perceived as either controlled and selective or unexpected and distracting.

 

We have all experienced the sudden conscious awareness of an unattended input. The so-called cocktail party effect11 occurs when you hear your name mentioned somewhere in a crowded room as you engage in a discussion with someone else. Even as you attend to the discussion, presumably you monitor other sounds in the room unconsciously. Your attention controller detects an important stimulus—your name—which causes you to shift your conscious attention away from your discussion.

 

Using these basic concepts, the distracting nature of mobile devices in the classroom can be recast. Given two potential inputs, the instructor or a laptop screen displaying a game of Solitaire, some students select the instructor as the attended input and the laptop as the unattended input. Those who are trying to listen to their instructor and find their attention captured by their own or another student's laptop screen are distracted by that device. This can be problematic in a classroom environment, as it interferes with students' ability to process course related information and prevents them from obtaining an outcome (specifically, learning) they desire and expect to receive, a common cause of frustration, anger, and aggression.12 This emotional response is probably more pronounced when students are distracted by others' devices over which they have no control. As much as we hope that all students select their instructors as the primary target of their attention during class, we know that some choose the game of Solitaire, relegating the instructor to the status of unattended input. This is often described erroneously as distraction. In fact, these students are not distracted by their devices; they have selected them for attention. If anything, these students may find themselves distracted by the instructor.

 

This is probably what passes as multitasking for many students. They attend to e-mail, instant messages, and other unrelated, device-based information during class, while monitoring the instructional stream unconsciously. Their attention controllers are set to respond to important signals, such as the phrase, "This will be on the test." In the classroom version of the cocktail party effect, students' attention then snaps to the instructor.

 

Although the challenge in this case is one of student motivation, not distraction, the two are closely related. As more students decide to instant message or play online games during class, the volume and variety of potentially distracting environmental information increases, making it more difficult for motivated learners to attend to the instructor. What impact does this have on classroom design?

 

First and foremost, instructors must be able to engage students in the learning process during class time, and classrooms must be designed to facilitate that engagement. It is difficult for students to attend to other activities when they are talking to an instructor, working on a group activity, or using their devices for academic purposes. Instead of banning instant messaging in class, instructors might be supported in their use of this and other social technologies to facilitate class-related discussion and collaborative work.

 

Attempting to prohibit the use of devices in class through edict or infrastructure (for example, installing an Internet kill switch) is costly and does little to address the underlying problem. It is preferable to design classrooms and classroom computing policies that allow instructors to exercise greater social control.

 

In the case of laptops in the classroom, screens should be easily visible to instructors as they walk around the room, and instructors should be able to display any student's laptop screen to a public screen at a moment's notice. In large classes, software that allows instructors to view thumbnail images of each student's screen (for example, DyKnow Monitor or SMART SynchronEyes) may also be useful. Although most instructors are probably not interested in spending time on what feels like student surveillance, the mere presence of these methods combined with clear classroom policies offers a good classroom management solution that lets students continue using their devices for academic purposes.

 

Through their behavior, some students are telling us that they feel neither the need nor the desire to pay close attention to the instructor during some classes. Generally speaking, this is nothing new.

 

However, those responsible for designing learning spaces should be aware that today's incarnation of this problem requires additional study. Today's devices are colliding with yesterday's methods. What takes place in a college classroom is changing, due in large part to the very information technology that gives some instructors and administrators cause for concern. The classroom is no longer a place where information is delivered to passive students. A growing number of students get that information elsewhere and do not expect to hear it repeated verbatim in class. Instead, the classroom is becoming an interactive, collaborative environment where knowledge is created actively by students, many of whom have devices that are as much a part of them as their own skin and that can be a very important part of this process.

 

 

Collaboration in the Classroom

 

Although planning for data projection and network access is an important part of today's classroom design process, information technology is likely to have an even greater indirect effect on how fixed-site classrooms are used in the future. The migration to the Web of the content traditionally delivered by instructors in lecture format is helping shift the function served by brick-and-mortar classrooms from information delivery to collaboration and discussion. Collaborative learning refers to a wide variety of "educational activities in which human relationships are the key to welfare, achievement, and mastery," wherein faculty "help students learn by working together on substantive issues."13 Surveys indicate that lecture is still the most common instructional method used educators in the United States.14

 

Nonetheless, the transition from lecture to collaboration is well under way.

 

What impact does this have on classroom design? This fundamental change will challenge designers to create environments that facilitate collaborative activities. Instead of theaters where students watch instructors perform, classrooms must be flexible meeting places. Bruffee15 described the ideal classroom for collaborative learning:

 

A level floor, movable seats, chalkboards on three or four walls, controlled acoustics (acoustical-tiled ceilings and carpeted floors), and no central seminar table (or one that can be pushed well out of the way without threatening an attack of lumbago). An alternative is six to ten movable four- or five-sided tables of roughly card-table size. This description implies a maximum class size of 50 students. The question of classroom density is an important one: Researchers have explored the psychological and educational effects of classroom density, both spatial (the size of the room) and social (the number of students). In their meta-analysis of 77 different studies on this issue, Glass and Smith16 concluded that higher social density results in lower student achievement. When designing collaborative classrooms, a good social density benchmark is three to five groups of 6 to 12 students each. Spatial density should be such that both students and instructors have enough room to move easily from group to group (specifically, 4 to 7 feet between groups). Designers should also pay careful attention to the degree to which students feel crowded in a classroom. The experience of crowding in educational settings appears related to personal space violation.17 Research suggests that groups of students can be expected to work together most effectively at personal distances of 2 to 4 feet without feeling crowded.

 

Although class size is a limiting factor when implementing certain collaborative learning activities comfortably, small group collaboration and discussion are easier to manage in large classes than many instructors realize.

 

Informal small group techniques like think-pair-share,18 wherein students think briefly about a question posed by the instructor, discuss their thoughts with a student sitting next to them, and then share their joint thoughts with the class, are feasible in large classes19 and can be facilitated by technology.

 

More formal activities such as jigsaw groups and structured controversy can also engage students in large classes.20

 

Classroom response systems or "clickers" are used by a growing number of instructors to gather student feedback and stimulate in-class discussion.

 

In classes that allow group network access, a wide variety of groupware tools can support collaboration in groups of all sizes.

 

DyKnow Vision allows students to view and annotate instructor whiteboard activity in real time. Instructors can then invite students to the virtual whiteboard, displaying their work to the entire class.

 

GroupSystems is a suite of tools for supporting idea generation, organization, and evaluation in face-to-face and distributed groups.

 

…………………..

 

College Classrooms of Mystery and Enchantment

 

As students enter a virtual or brick-and-mortar learning environment, they form a cognitive impression of that space and experience an associated emotional response, just as Harry Potter did when he entered his Divination classroom.

People's preference for specific environments appears to depend on their cognitive impression. Kaplan and Kaplan22 suggested four cognitive determinants of environmental preference:

Coherence, or the ease with which a setting can be organized cognitively

Complexity, or the perceived capacity of the setting to occupy interest and stimulate activity

Legibility, or perceived ease of use

Mystery, or the perception that entering the setting would lead to increased learning, interaction, or interest

An interesting addition to this list might be the concept of enchantment.

 

Bennett23 described enchantment as the experience of being "both caught up and carried away." When enchanted by what we are experiencing, we are held spellbound, our senses seem heightened,24 and we are caught in a moment of pure presence that we try to maintain.25
--
============================
George Apostolopoulos
++30 6945 809527




--
============================
George Apostolopoulos
++30 6945 809527

Τετάρτη 20 Ιανουαρίου 2010

What are the Web-based social values that you think are most contrary to the managerial DNA one finds inside a typical corporate giant?

The Facebook Generation vs. the Fortune 500
By Gary Hamel



http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2009/03/24/the-facebook-generation-vs-the-fortune-500/

I compiled a list of 12 work-relevant characteristics of online life. These are the post-bureaucratic realities that tomorrow’s employees will use as yardsticks in determining whether your company is “with it” or “past it.” In assembling this short list, I haven’t tried to catalog every salient feature of the Web’s social milieu, only those that are most at odds with the legacy practices found in large companies.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
On the Web, every idea has the chance to gain a following—or not, and no one has the power to kill off a subversive idea or squelch an embarrassing debate. Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.
 

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
When you post a video to YouTube, no one asks you if you went to film school. When you write a blog, no one cares whether you have a journalism degree. Position, title, and academic degrees—none of the usual status differentiators carry much weight online. On the Web, what counts is not your resume, but what you can contribute.
 

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
In any Web forum there are some individuals who command more respect and attention than others—and have more influence as a consequence. Critically, though, these individuals haven’t been appointed by some superior authority. Instead, their clout reflects the freely given approbation of their peers. On the Web, authority trickles up, not down.
 

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.
On the Web, every leader is a servant leader; no one has the power to command or sanction. Credible arguments, demonstrated expertise and selfless behavior are the only levers for getting things done through other people. Forget this online, and your followers will soon abandon you.
 

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
The Web is an opt-in economy. Whether contributing to a blog, working on an open source project, or sharing advice in a forum, people choose to work on the things that interest them. Everyone is an independent contractor, and everyone scratches their own itch.
 

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.
On the Web, you get to choose your compatriots. In any online community, you have the freedom to link up with some individuals and ignore the rest, to share deeply with some folks and not at all with others. Just as no one can assign you a boring task, no can force you to work with dim-witted colleagues.
 

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.
In large organizations, resources get allocated top-down, in a politicized, Soviet-style budget wrangle. On the Web, human effort flows towards ideas and projects that are attractive (and fun), and away from those that aren’t. In this sense, the Web is a market economy where millions of individuals get to decide, moment by moment, how to spend the precious currency of their time and attention.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.
The Web is also a gift economy. To gain influence and status, you have to give away your expertise and content. And you must do it quickly; if you don’t, someone else will beat you to the punch—and garner the credit that might have been yours. Online, there are a lot of incentives to share, and few incentives to hoard.
 

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.
On the Internet, truly smart ideas rapidly gain a following no matter how disruptive they may be. The Web is a near-perfect medium for aggregating the wisdom of the crowd—whether in formally organized opinion markets or in casual discussion groups. And once aggregated, the voice of the masses can be used as a battering ram to challenge the entrenched interests of institutions in the offline world.
10. Users can veto most policy decisions.
As many Internet moguls have learned to their sorrow, online users are opinionated and vociferous—and will quickly attack any decision or policy change that seems contrary to the community’s interests. The only way to keep users loyal is to give them a substantial say in key decisions. You may have built the community, but the users really own it.
 

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.
The web is a testament to the power of intrinsic rewards. Think of all the articles contributed to Wikipedia, all the open source software created, all the advice freely given—add up the hours of volunteer time and it’s obvious that human beings will give generously of themselves when they’re given the chance to contribute to something they actually care about. Money’s great, but so is recognition and the joy of accomplishment.
 

12. Hackers are heroes.
Large organizations tend to make life uncomfortable for activists and rabble-rousers—however constructive they may be. In contrast, online communities frequently embrace those with strong anti-authoritarian views. On the Web, muckraking malcontents are frequently celebrated as champions of the Internet’s democratic values—particularly if they’ve managed to hack a piece of code that has been interfering with what others regard as their inalienable digital rights.
 

These features of Web-based life are written into the social DNA of Generation F—and mostly missing from the managerial DNA of the average Fortune 500 company. Yeah, there are a lot of kids looking for jobs right now, but few of them will ever feel at home in cubicleland.
 

So, readers, here’s a couple of questions: What are the Web-based social values that you think are most contrary to the managerial DNA one finds inside a typical corporate giant? And how should we reinvent management to make it more consistent with these emerging online sensibilities?


Schein's model of organizational culture


Edgar Henry Schein (born 1928), a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, has made a notable mark on the field of organizational development in many areas, including career development, group process consultation, and organizational culture. He is generally credited[by whom?] with inventing the term "corporate culture". (The Oxford English Dictionary traces the phrase "corporate culture" as far back as "1966 Acad. Managem. Jrnl. 9 362/2".)
 

Schein's organizational culture model


Schein (2004) identifies three distinct levels in organizational cultures:
1.    artifacts and behaviours
2.    espoused values
3.    assumptions
 

The three levels refer to the layers of corporate culture.
•    Artifacts include any tangible or verbally identifiable elements in an organization. Architecture, furniture, dress code, office jokes and history all exemplify organizational artifacts.
•    Values are the organizations stated or desired cultural elements. This is most often a written or stated tone that the CEO or President hope to exude throughout the office environment. Examples of this would be employee professionalism, or a "family first" mantra.
•    Assumptions are the actual values that the culture represents, not necessarily correlated to the values. These assumptions are typically so well integrated in the office dynamic that they are hard to recognize from within.[1]
 

The model has undergone various modifications, such as the Raz update of Schein's organizational culture model (2006), and others.



Edgar Schein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia