Archive for the ‘social networking’ Category

Don’t do more

August 5, 2010
Sue Gardner

Sue Gardner

Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, recently blogged about Wikimedia as “a sort of social movement“. Gardner asked why it is that Wikimedians don’t do more to encourage internal solidarity and support kindness, understanding, generosity and a sense of common purpose. Interesting question.

What sort of social movement is Wikimedia? If you read the Wikimedia Foundation’s statements on Mission, Values, Vision and Bylaws you find no description of Wikimedia as a social movement. If you search the Foundation’s website you can find this quote from Wikimedia Foundation Trustee, Matt Halprin: “The Wikimedia Foundation is a critical player in the growing social movement toward greater transparency and openness.”

Gardner wrote, “Our goal is to make information easily available for people everywhere around the world – free of commercialism, free of charge, free of bias.” If you read the Wikimedia Foundation’s statements on Mission, Values, Vision and Bylaws you find no description of Wikimedia bias. If you search the Wikimedia Foundation’s website you can find this quote from Doron Weber, Director of the Sloan Foundation’s Program for Universal Access to Recorded Knowledge about Wikipedia: “…Wikipedia represents a quantum leap in collecting human knowledge from diverse sources, organizing it without commercial or other bias…..”

How does the Wikimedia Foundation measure up for transparency and what about bias in Wikipedia? Wikipedia allows anonymous editors to publish biased information about living people. For example, on March 8, 2006, an anonymous Wikipedia editor created a Wikipedia biography article about a university professor. That anonymous Wikipedia editor violated Wikipedia’s rules that are designed to keep Wikipedia free of biased biographies of living people. When a colleague of the university professor sought to correct the biased Wikipedia biography, he was blocked from editing Wikipedia and his user page was defaced and locked. Rather than follow Wikipedia policy and correct the biased biography, a gang of Wikipedians attacked and harassed the person who tried to correct the bias.

The gang of policy-violating Wikipedians, not content to simply block their fellow Wikipedian who had tried to keep Wikipedia free of bias, stalked him to his personal blog and subjected him to vile online harassment. The gang of policy-violating Wikipedians also followed Moulton to Wikiversity and harassed him there, with the stated objective of getting Moulton banned from participation at Wikiversity. The gang of policy-violating Wikipedians was successful by gaming Wikimedia Foundation Board member Jimbo Wales into violating Wikiversity policy and imposing an infinite duration block on Moulton, a block imposed against consensus and with no public discussion of the block. The decision to impose this policy-violating  block on Moulton was made by a few Wikipedians acting in secret. So much for the “transparency and openness” of the Wikimedia Foundation. Moulton, who only tried to help Wikimedia, is still subjected to continuing harassment by Wikimedia functionaries. Why are a few “special” Wikipedians and anonymous editors still allowed to force their personal biases on the world by using Wikipedia as their publishing platform? What is the ethical nature of an organization that allows anonymous editors to publish false claims about living people? Why are honest Wikimedians like Moulton harassed and driven away when they try to remove bias from Wikimedia? Should anyone take Sue Gardner seriously when she talks about the Wikimedia Foundation having a goal of being free from bias? (related blog post)

In 2010, a Wikiversity community member created a learning project aimed at finding an ethical means to improve Wikimedia projects. The Ethical Breaching Experiments learning project was deleted by Jimbo Wales, without community discussion, in violation of Wikiversity policy and against community consensus. The creator of the learning project was blocked from editing by Jimbo Wales, in violation of Wikiversity policy. In an effort to impose his misguided disruption of Wikiversity on the community, Jimbo Wales threatened Wikiversity with closure. Sue Gardner threw her support behind the misguided actions of Jimbo Wales.

Sue Gardner asked why it is that Wikimedians don’t do more to encourage internal solidarity and support kindness, understanding, generosity and a sense of common purpose. Yes, Sue, why don’t you? Why did you support Jimbo Wales in his misguided disruption of Wikiversity?

Advertisements

Social Networking Sites as Silos

March 2, 2010
Learn button

Learn Buttons

I previously blogged about the distinction between open-to-all learning communities and restricted access communities. Beyond limits on participation, most software-based communities have a problem with the free flow of information between communities.

One of the popular tools for helping to prevent online communities from being information silos has been content syndication. The first “feed reader” that I used was Bloglines. Many social networking sites allow participants to aggregate feeds and share those aggregates with other participants. One of these that I recently started experimenting with is Tumblr. There now exists a confusing collection of makeshift solutions to the problem of sharing information and social contacts between online communities. Can there be widely-adopted open standards for social networking?

One attempt to create such standards is the DiSo project. Look at the slogans for the DiSo (dee soh) project (“creation of open, non-proprietary and interoperable building blocks for the decentralized social web”):

  • Open, Distributed, Social.
  • Silo free living.
  • Information, Identity, and Interaction.
  • I hope that a coherent set of software tools will become available for helping us organize our online social networking. There seems to be a large gap between the needs of online learners and the desire of internet social networking companies to make a profit. Even non-profit organizations that are dedicated to online education struggle to facilitate the social aspects of learning. It will be interesting to see how online social learning networks continue to develop. I suppose things were just as confused when the first bricks-and-mortar schools were created. Most building were used for other things besides facilitating learning. With time, people figured out how to make specialized buildings that were well-suited for learning. At this time, most social networking sites are very much oriented around entertainment and commerce.

    If we are going to have efficient social networking tools for learning we need more than “like” buttons. In particular, I want something along the lines of a “I don’t understand X” button. That would be the foundation for for getting help for navigating a learning path through a collection of linked online communities.

    Emergence of what?

    March 1, 2010

    "Your social dynamics suck."

    “although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not” – Isaac Asimov

    In my last blog post I mentioned SpaceCollective as a learning community that did not adopt the “open to all” community structure that has been adopted by other learning communities such as Wikiversity. In Fiction and Learning, I mentioned Isaac Asimov’s imagined planet of the future, Solaria, where advanced technology and a global communications system did not result in people cooperating with others, rather, each individual pursued their individual creative endeavor. I asked, “Will the internet bring humanity together or will we all self-segregate into warring internet tribes?”

    In an essay called The Natural Asymmetry of Infocologies, there is discussion of the idea that within our expanding internet-driven infosphere the relationships between individual learners, “are fundamentally and increasingly becoming more and more asymmetrical.” These “asymmetries” among social learners take many forms including the fundamental fact that, “not all aspects of my infocology are of relevance and of interest to another mind”.

    Here is an analogy for the natural asymmetries of social interactions in the infosphere: Several tens of thousands of years ago modern humans spread outward from Africa. Human languages and other cultural features diverged and we are still reaping the “rewards” of cultural incompatibility and tribal warfare.

    In this analogy, I’m comparing the spread of human cultural groups over the surface of our planet to the proliferation of divergent information ecologies across the infosphere. My intuition suggests that the infosphere is vastly wider than the surface of Earth. The question becomes, will we find social networking tools that keep us all together as collaborators within the infosphere or will the distances between us grow, resulting in a new era of mutually incomprehensible tribes?

    I’m not happy with the idea that, with time, the infosphere will spontaneously develop the technologies that are needed to keep us unified. It seems a leap of faith to say, “the optimal distance is an emergent property of innovative infocologies“. Faith in emergence of a happy outcome sounds like saying we could have prevented tribal warfare if our ancestors had better used smoke signal technology to communicate about their common interests.

    Clubs and Scale

    February 26, 2010

    Chess Club

    In my last blog post I made a distinction between specialty learning communities and Wikiversity. Wikiversity uses the same community strategy as Wikipedia: everyone is invited to participate. At Wikiversity, the fundamental unit of social learning is the “learning project” and participants (editors) are free to create and participate in learning projects for any topic.

    In contrast to the “open to all” community structure of Wikiversity, many online learning communities have a narrow focus and some are like learning clubs where you need to either be invited or pay for your chance to participate. For example, participation at SpaceCollective requires an invitation and some of the projects are not even open to all SpaceCollective members.

    When a community of internet users forms and begins to explore shared learning goals and common interests, what are the natural limits to the size of the community? Does it make sense to impose artificial restrictions on participation or should our software tools allow for flexible modification of community structure according to the whims of each participant? Right now, the internet is being populated by many different types of learning communities. Since there is variation in learning styles and learning goals, I do not expect there to be a single “best” format for online learning communities. It will be interesting to watch and observe the “survival of the fittest”…which tools for building online learning communities will survive and which ones will fade away?

    Screenshot of the projects page for SpaceCollective:

    screenshot http://spacecollective.org/projects/

    Learning projects at SpaceCollective.

    Upper Image. Chess Club by AskJoanne

    Online social networks for learners

    February 26, 2010

    Learn by doing.

    In my last blog post I used a few of the major social networking websites as examples for the “state of the art” in social networking. In this post, I want to review some examples of social networking tools that have been used specifically for education.

    The major social networking websites are for-profit and in my experience they are heavily slanted towards entertainment and advertising. Elgg social networking software is open source and has been used by educators to create social networks for learners. For example, Eduspaces is a learning-oriented social network powered by the Elgg software and one of the content sharing features is blogging by members of the social network.

    An online learning-oriented community that I have personally experimented with is Wikiversity. Wikiversity is powered by the open source MediaWiki software platform that powers Wikipedia. The basic content format is the wiki page, a webpage that can be edited by anyone.

    Wikiversity traffic.

    Based on Alexa statistics (see the graph, above), Wikiversity gets a significant amount of traffic because of its association with Wikipedia. Many online educational sites are niche communities and seldom grow beyond a limited size. Like Wikipedia, Wikiversity aims to be comprehensive in its approach to providing online learning resources. Unlike Wikipedia which is oriented towards providing printed documents to readers, Wikiversity aims to functioning as an online destination for learners where they can participate in a community where “learn by doing” (mostly “learn by webpage editing”) projects provide “hands on” learning opportunities.

    Many computer-facilitated learning communities are closed and intended to serve one particular bricks and mortar educational institution. It remains to be seen to what extent Asimov’s dream of making all the world’s knowledge available via computer-mediated access can become a reality. Will our cultural momentum keep bricks and mortar educational institutions in control of some types of educational resources or will a new ethic come to dominate by which everything will be freely available by way of the internet to every learning of the world?

    Image. Learning by Doing by Brian C. Smith

    Social networking and social learning

    February 24, 2010

    In my last blog post I completed my review of the internet as a learning prosthetic, a collection of learning resources and tools that has the power to satisfy Asimov’s dream of computer-assisted learning where, “everyone can have a teacher in the form of access to the gathered knowledge of the human species.” If the internet can function like a teacher or a personal tutor, then it will do so mostly through our social interactions with other people who we are linked to by way of the internet. We all collaborate via the internet so as to function as each other’s teachers.

    Social networking.


    If this model of online learning is valid, then a fundamentally important skill for each of us, as online learners, is using the available internet tools to build and maintain a personal social network that facilitates progress along our individual learning paths.  For convenience, I’m going to divide online social networking into two parts. “Part one” is exploration of the internet, finding useful learning tools and people with shared interests and making robust connections for communication with those people. “Part two” is using the resources that you have found on the internet. In this blog post I want to focus on the web 2.0 issue of what we put on the internet and how we share it with others.

    If we are all forming and using online learning communities then how do we efficiently share our knowledge with each other via the internet? We have many tools for sharing knowledge via the internet including email, discussion forums, chat systems, wiki websites and blogs. For this post I’m going to focus on ways to share knowledge by blogging.

    The Long Tail

    Technorati‘s “State of the Blogosphere 2009” provides some useful information about how people are using blogs. The sample of bloggers that is described in their annual report is skewed, but even in this biased sample most bloggers report that they blog for personal satisfaction. Use of blogging as a learning tool does not require any other motivation. Even when we are not trying to share knowledge with others it is useful to be reflective and write down what we are thinking about. By exposing your inner thoughts to the world you create opportunities for others to discover that they share your interests and that can lead to new online contacts and expansion of your social learning network.

    Can other people find your blog? Google has instructions for making sure that your blog can be found by way of their search engine.  Another way to allow people to discover your blog is to use microblogging websites such as Twitter. I routinely tweet about my blog posts and I usually mark those tweets with these tags: #fiction #SciFi #writing. I’ve been using Bit.ly to shorten the URLs of my blog posts and I can see a record of how many Twitter users have followed my tweets to view my blog posts (this averages about 7; thanks mom and dad!).

    I also send out notifications and links for my blog posts to my Facebook wall and my Gmail contacts via Buzz.

    facebook wall

    Facebook wall items, note the dates

    The image above shows part of my Facebook wall and you can see two different ways of publishing a blog post. In this case, the NetworkedBlogs Facebook application was significantly faster than the Blog/RSS option that was published by the method shown below:

    Facebook wall

    Sceenshot of my Facebook wall blog publishing settings.


    I feel like the NetworkedBlogs application has advantages, but when I tried to use it to publish this new blog (Collaborative Learning) to my Facebook wall, the application would not work with FireFox v3.6 for the mac. Unfortunately, that is a rather typical example of my usual experiences while trying to utilize existing social networking software. Everything is so new and changing so rapidly that there are significant ease-of-use issues that inhibit people from adopting these new learning technologies.

    These examples (above) show some of the current complexity that exists in sharing knowledge on the internet. It is fun and informative to search for blogs that are related to my personal interests, but I feel that the existing tools for sharing blog posts and searching for blog content are cumbersome and inefficient. I hope that in coming years the entire process of using internet tools such as blogs for networking and online social learning will be improved. Currently, it takes more work than it should to share our knowledge with others who share our interests and learning goals.

    Image. The image at the top of this post is “community building through social networking” by David King.