Is OAC too Web2.0 for its own good?

[Kerim Friedman]

I'm amazed at the number of people who have joined and added content to OAC here on ning. Truly awe-inspiring. However, I have to say that I worry a lot about the platform. I never liked Facebook much and Ning seems like a poor imitation of Facebook. Will OAC devolve into people answering quizzes: "Which anthropology network am I?" I personally prefer Google Groups because of its simplicity, and the fact that people can use it as they like: via e-mail, via RSS, or via the web. I find that something like Google Groups encourages conversation in its simplicity, whereas Facebook/Ning seem designed to create walls: Why do I have to invite "friends"? Why do they have to acknowledge my "friend request"? Do I post content as a blog post or a forum entry? It seems that layers and layers of unnecessary complexity have been added to what something like Google (and Twitter, which I also like) makes simple: conversation.

And yet, the tremendous activity already here seems to belie my concerns, so maybe Ning doesn't suck as much as I think it does?

[Keith Hart]

Thanks, Kerim. These questions should be asked and soon enough. I have been taken by surprise as much as anyone. I stumbled into what I thought was going to be a small experiment featuring mainly those of us ho began the conversation on Twitter and then my website forum. I helped to create the gigantism by emptying large chunks of my address book into the invitation function. Now, after less than two days, we have 250 members and it's hard to think how we might get out of here without doing damage to the network.

So that raises a question put to me privately yesterday by Carole McGranahan and we tabled it for discussion soon. Do we need all this Facebook 'friends' stuff? Could we diable that and some other features we don't like? Shouldn't the members be consulted on what they want and what mechanism would we have for resolving a serious split?

I don't know what principle if any we should use for deciding this issue on the Blog or the Forum. But this network has grown fast enough for it no longer to be easy for a handful of us to decide what we find aesthetically or socially pleasing. Obviously some of the diverse activity that has already been launched will end up withering away. But other unexpected developments are likely to flourish.

It's a political issue now, isn't it? Probably always was, but size and dynamism make a differncne.

[Kerim Friedman]

I suppose if people are using it, the platform doesn't matter. But I worry that everyone will simply join, get dismayed, and then not bother to come back. If activity sustains over the long run we have nothing to worry about, so perhaps wait-and-see is the best approach?

[Hülya Demirdirek]

Although Lenin was supporting centralism in the pamphlet entitled "One step forward two steps back" I like the sound of this "retrogradus: principal ( a bit like the "Mether" musical band of Ottomon Empire). It is good to take those two back steps and with your comment I think you did Kerim.

In her response to Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg criticizes Lenin's vision and supports the "revolutionary movements" and their spirit but not the central committees. Of course there is no "movement" here, there are only people with their various potential networks. Still there is an unknown potential. I left Facebook after a 2 hours of membership but I wanted to see where does this all go here. I already find myself in need of sending people message and saying "please change your settings so that we do not see it each time you change your profile or when you get a new friend unless you really want this to be visible to the others". And I want to say "after you are friends with someone please send a message direct to them after the initial contact, there is enough exchanges of that type". I feel this way because although I am interested in this "platform" I do not want to get drawn in to the inflation of chats and loose my chance to pay attention to the issues I deem relevant. If I do this, it will be my political choice and I will hear what other people have to say. (Here I am cheating of course by saying it this way!)

In the same place Rosa Luxemburg (Revolutionary Socialist Organization 1904) says that historically the errors made by a revolutionary movement is more productive than the most clever central organ. Surely as Keith says some will vanish some will take other shapes. I now put myself into this I would like to try to influence the direction of some parts of it. It is politics yes and it is very interesting to see the speed of accumulation. I feel we are "seeing" but we are not just "waiting". I was tempted to write to you but was thinking "no I do not have time" after your last comment I lost to the temptation to the desire of communicating.

[Keith Hart]

Kerim, As for worrying about people being put off by the Web 2.0 atmosphere of this place, I think a larger number of individuals join to see what's up and then go away never to return, leaving their unmodified profile to clutter up our list of members. I like the fact that Max has now moved Groups into greater prominence on the home page. Some of these will not get off the ground; but if some do, that would be a greater justification for OAC than any design features.

[Francine Barone]

Ironically, I'm usually against Web 2.0 feature-packed interfaces. I dislike Facebook nearly as much as MySpace; I also have my qualms with Twitter (ahem). Although it forms a significant part of my ethnographic research, I've never been that interested in the intricacies of online social networking in a personal sense. Having stumbled into it like this, however, it is starting to grow on me. Much in the way that I slightly warmed to Twitter when I realized that there were anthropologists twitting about, I think it is the community which makes the technology or interface worthwhile.

If we could disable the inclusion of the stupid aps for user pages (what's stupid to me might not be stupid to others who join up, though), it might make for a generally maintainable, streamlined and simplistic approach. I admit that there are a lot of modules - forums, blogs, groups, photo, video - and that might be overwhelming to some and underwhelming to others. I honestly think it's too early to tell.

In the meantime, I'll check out Google Groups.

Fran

[Jan Begine]

Google just announced: Google Wave, a new online service that supposedly will 'revolutionise' communication and online collaboration.

More about here and here.

Looks like a combo of GMail, wiki's, Google Docs and Google Groups. But it's so new it might put some people off at first.

I like ning, it's relatively uncluttered and straightforward.

[Jan Begine]

... although an 'edit' feature for you comments would be appreciated: "More about it here ..."

;-)

[Francine Barone]

I believe that you can edit your comments within 15 minutes of posting them by clicking anywhere on the posted text. I guess it takes 15 minutes for electronic ink to dry.

[Francine Barone]

Oh, well, I guess that only works for forum posts! Retraction ...

[Jan Begine]

I know, but I think that's only possible in the forum and, for some strange reason, not for replies to blogs...