This link has been bookmarked by 12 people . It was first bookmarked on 20 Feb 2009, by Kristina Hoeppner.
-
19 Aug 09
-
11 Aug 09
Lawrence LiuA while back I blogged about the possibility of networks and blogospheres cutting into the need for communities. I believe this is happening a great deal, as now people may have a more purposeful or ideal way of achieving their needs that they were once achieving by being in a community.
NOTE: I want to stress in this post I’m referring to *pure* CoPs, ie. cross-functional group spaces to learn about a topic (*usually* comprised of people across different teams). I’m not refering to teams using CoP-like social software, like Basecamp as a group space to coordinate and communicate tasks/project. -
03 Jul 09
-
27 Mar 09
-
But again, I won’t hold my breath, as we are now seeing lots of companies and services using a Twitter account for news and support. As that’s where the people are at, you don’t have to shift to another space to engage in something else.
-
but since each individual blogger decides where to turn their focus, and what other blogs to comment on, bloggers are members of many groups at the same time. More importantly, the structure of blogging supports that model directly. In a group forum, you are a member of that one group, and not a member of any others: the fact that you may be a member of other groups is not explicitly supported.”
-
“So the groupware model of collaboration, where neatly partitioned worlds are created, and individuals are made to shift context in order to shift from one social thread to another, seems unnatural to me. The primacy of groups and group membership in old-school groupware is outmoded.
-
What I mean is that if you network you know how to tie all the scattered content together as you blog about it and bookmark it. But for new comers, finding all content on a topic in one page is always easier.
-
“We are, first and foremost, individuals. The concept that whenever we do something it should be intentionally in the context of a specific well-defined group is outmoded, and was always an approximation of what is really going on, socially. We are involved in social relationships, and what we do with others is always social, but not necessarily part of a group, or only of one group. So, let’s put aside groups, and focus on the individual. The groups will follow.”
-
I think this is the main difference here, if you want to build a topic hub (a clearing house on a topic, as well as learning from each other whilst you’re building your practice via conversations), you need a community, people become members of a shared space, which is a commitment to contributing to the aim.
-
I think communities and networks are complementary (as mentioned above in my reference to Friendfeed), that’s why we see both the Facebook social network and Facebook groups as extremely popular…
-
Online Communities Social Networks Top-down Bottom-up Place-centric People-centric Moderator controlled User controlled Topic driven Decentralized
Centralized Context driven Architected Self-organizing -
Looking at these differences there are plenty of reasons why someone may prefer one environment over the other. But this will soon become a non-issue as most existing platforms are now starting to provide both.
-
I can’t remember where I read this but someone claimed that the more connected a person is, the less he/she is likely to engage in CoPs, in this new scenario.”
-
It’s not that CoPs are not worthy, it’s just that a more “individualistic” form of networking and learning has surfaced that is more conducive and natural to the flow of how humans think and learn. If we can achieve the same goal in a more simplistic and effective way, we will naturally do it, as that’s being human.
-
“People who interact daily come to know many of the same things, and are in that sense informationally redundant. In contrast, people who do not interact will often know many things that the other does not know.”
“The property of having ties to people who are not in the same social circles with each other is called betweenness or “structural holes”. A person rich in structural holes has many ties, and the people they are tied to are not tied to each other.”
-
the study came from “Connector” type people, those who bridge groups, as these people were exposed to more diverse ideas and ways of thinking. Whereas people that hung round in the same group and didn’t really connect with other clusters seemed to have an echo chamber effect, and that the ideas were not strategically beneficial for the company at large, they could not see beyond their own group (how they fit into the big picture, how they effect and are effected by other groups).
-
The other thing, is I don’t have the time to be a member of lots of communities, but being in a network is effortless (again Stowe Boyd’s context shift and naturalistic points).
-
NOTE: You can network within a community, but a network is not a community
-
“Dave Snowden recently said to Etienne Wenger “If knowledge management had had the tools we have today it would not have needed communities of practice” (I paraphrase).”
-
“I would also (to take the issue on) argue that attempts to create CoP through formal process and control are also a mistake. If a community has value it will form and the technology now allows that. Control and censorship are not appropriate.
-
-
28 Feb 09
-
A while back I blogged about the possibility of networks and blogospheres cutting into the need for communities. I believe this is happening a great deal, as now people may have a more purposeful or ideal way of achieving their needs that they were once achieving by being in a community.
-
-
20 Feb 09
-
18 Feb 09
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.