User:Ilya/OpenWetWare/Notes: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
< User:Ilya | OpenWetWare
No edit summary |
(→Ideas) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
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 (early stages(1) -> sustained contribution(2) -> meta-contribution(3)): | |||
*#most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project (curiosity) | |||
*#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 | |||
==Ideas== | |||
* important to provide feedback to users | |||
* one big channel to ask questions to get max exposure | |||
* find the right person to talk to (find collaborator) | |||
* talk to that person (communicate within project) | |||
* (from Sean Moore): I recently entered a [[Moore:Chemiluminescent|protocol]] under my lab protocols section that I would like to also have listed on the mail protocols page under "proteins" and "Westerns". Is there a way to use key words so the protocol wil automatically be added to related groups? |
Latest revision as of 00:36, 21 November 2008
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, File: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 (early stages(1) -> sustained contribution(2) -> meta-contribution(3)):
- most people, regular users, attracted by visibility of the project (curiosity)
- 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):
Ideas
- important to provide feedback to users
- one big channel to ask questions to get max exposure
- find the right person to talk to (find collaborator)
- talk to that person (communicate within project)
- (from Sean Moore): I recently entered a protocol under my lab protocols section that I would like to also have listed on the mail protocols page under "proteins" and "Westerns". Is there a way to use key words so the protocol wil automatically be added to related groups?