User:Ilya/OpenWetWare/Notes
From OpenWetWare
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration=== | ===The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration=== | ||
| - | *Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13 | + | *Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13, [[Image:070413_MIT_presentation.pdf]] |
*[http://floss.syr.edu/ Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research] | *[http://floss.syr.edu/ Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research] | ||
| + | *Why do people contribute to open communities (massive virtual collaboration)? | ||
| + | **Helpful to design attractive systems or to estimate likely success of projects | ||
| + | **benefit > cost | ||
| + | ***cost: opportunity cost of time | ||
| + | ***benefit: job offers, ego gratification - in theory; self-determination, human capital - in practice | ||
| + | **students are motivated differently from workers | ||
| + | **motivation in Wikipedia ([[doi:10.1145/1215942.1215943|Kuznetsov 2006]], [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanWhyPeopleWrite.pdf Forte & Bruckman 2005]) same as in OSS plus reciprocity (expectation of matching contributions) | ||
| + | ***need for other people's articles | ||
| + | ***anonymity affects peer recognition | ||
| + | *individual roles in project: passive users -> active users -> co-developers -> core developers | ||
| + | *stages of participation (curiosity -> sustained contributions -> meta contributions): | ||
| + | *#most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project | ||
| + | *#received feedback, "helping behavior", social movement; groups become homogeneous over time (attraction -> selection -> attrition) | ||
| + | *#very small number - the "long tail" (list of wikipedians by number of edits (stats.wikimedia.org): 54% once or twice, 25% >= 10x, 5% >= 100x); based on voluntaristic and helping nature, group identity; provide feedback to previous stages: enable more basic contributions | ||
| + | *practical implications for encouraging contributions: | ||
| + | **early stages (basic): | ||
| + | ***project is visible enough to attract attention | ||
| + | ***reduce barriers to entry | ||
| + | ***positive feedback -> exponential growth | ||
| + | **sustained contributions: | ||
| + | ***meaningful tasks | ||
| + | ***shared values | ||
| + | ***sustained contributions increase visibility of project | ||
| + | **meta contributions: | ||
| + | ***reward by more authority and visibility | ||
Revision as of 18:10, 2 July 2008
Contents |
Talks
Shaping the Age of User-Generated Content
- Speaker: Amy Bruckman, Electronic Learning Communities (ELC) lab
- Date: 2007-11-02
- small diffs in usability change user experience dramatically
- diffs in policy make interesting differences in user behavior
- allow local groups to establish editorial guidelines
- challenge: lack local enforcement policies (wide policies are used instead)
- decentralization happens as a necessity of scale
Apple OSX server wiki
- seems to be written from scratch, not based on any existing wiki engine
- cool web interface - may be useful for lab notebook
- interesting way to make new entries: click new entry, enter title box appears then the editor opens with title and content in separate edit boxes
- calendar is built in but apparently doesn't work with google calendar
The developmental arc of massive virtual collaboration
- Kevin Crowston & Isabelle Fagnot, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 2007-04-13, Image:070413 MIT presentation.pdf
- Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research
- Why do people contribute to open communities (massive virtual collaboration)?
- Helpful to design attractive systems or to estimate likely success of projects
- benefit > cost
- cost: opportunity cost of time
- benefit: job offers, ego gratification - in theory; self-determination, human capital - in practice
- students are motivated differently from workers
- motivation in Wikipedia (Kuznetsov 2006, Forte & Bruckman 2005) same as in OSS plus reciprocity (expectation of matching contributions)
- need for other people's articles
- anonymity affects peer recognition
- individual roles in project: passive users -> active users -> co-developers -> core developers
- stages of participation (curiosity -> sustained contributions -> meta contributions):
- most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project
- received feedback, "helping behavior", social movement; groups become homogeneous over time (attraction -> selection -> attrition)
- very small number - the "long tail" (list of wikipedians by number of edits (stats.wikimedia.org): 54% once or twice, 25% >= 10x, 5% >= 100x); based on voluntaristic and helping nature, group identity; provide feedback to previous stages: enable more basic contributions
- practical implications for encouraging contributions:
- early stages (basic):
- project is visible enough to attract attention
- reduce barriers to entry
- positive feedback -> exponential growth
- sustained contributions:
- meaningful tasks
- shared values
- sustained contributions increase visibility of project
- meta contributions:
- reward by more authority and visibility
- early stages (basic):
