|
| |
|
Friday, May 30, 2003 |
|
|
Maybe I should. I got a comment yesterday from a reader, suggesting I put a PayPal donation link or Amazon "Tip Jar" (or "Honor System" as Amazon calls it) to recieve donations. It was posted as a reply to my post here, where I was relating my frustration withthe trouble I am having finding even temp work.
I've moved the rest of this article to here
10:43:57 AM 
|
|
Some more Book Bloggin' Blogs entered today in Book Bloggin' commenting on Give Me That Online Religion by Brenda Basher and Jeff Zaleski's The Soul of Cyberspace
10:20:24 AM
|
|
|
It seems to me that this "Social Software" buzz and debates about its definition and the exploration of what constitutes examples of it (like Weblogs, which has sort of hosted the rise of the issue, as far as I know).....is squarely in the center of what should be getting lots of hits and research from people seeking communication stragies for the Church. It goes to the heart of subjects like The Soul of Cyberspace and Give Me That ONline Religion and "Cybergrace" (these three titles all books from my shelf). I will add mini-reviews for each of them in a few moments.
These conversations merit the devoted attention and participation of people supposedly interested in the interaction of humans, and in the things that make for community. Watch here as I begin to cover this and make direct (and often accusing) connections to the Church and where there is "cluelessness in search of....whatever it is that is the cure for cluelessness.....I guess that's exploring the clues.
8:58:04 AM
|
|
|
More Bill Thompson quotage, (the BBC guy from the previous post):
A search for computer mediated communication gives four academic journals in the first results page - and I doubt any of the social software bloggers have read or consulted any of them.
I would highly doubt that NONE of the bloggers have read academic journals. In fact, I would think just the oppostite. I detect a note of insinuation there, that the Webloggers are devoid of academic sophistication. Or is that just me?
Not that "academically sound" doesn;t itself smack of some intellectaul snobbery, and that some "academic papers" are not "full of themselves" and therefore likely to be low on the list of worthwhile references for bloggers who are blogging Social Software defintions and debates.
8:43:30 AM
|
|
|
A BBC NEWS writer (Bill Thompson) writea about the buzzings around "Social Software". This first paragraph caught my eye:
But it is now possible to have a serious debate about the social impact of the internet without mentioning protocols, packets or programming, and that in itself is significant progress.
But I am very doubtful about whether the ongoing debate, in the blogs and mailing lists and conferences, is actually taking us anywhere interesting.
OK then, I didn't see this; I did NOT find it via a blog (which I did)) and it didn't contribute to a pile of articles I've been seeing that caused this movement/defintion/debate to appear on my radar, and thus compel me to "blog it".
First, because treating all the many tools and services that allow people to interact with each other over the network as a single thing, demonstrates yet again the Western desire for simplification and regimentation instead of seeking to understand complexity. Second, and more significantly, I am saddened that the last 20 years of research into human computer interaction, and the last 100 years of research into human psychology and the ways we manage communication with each other, has been totally disregarded by the people discussing social software.
Who has he been reading? He must have missed Howard Rheingold, Jon Lebowsky (and lots of conversation going on in places like Brainstorms, David Weinberger, Doc Searls, and somehow, he missed ME too :-)
8:31:34 AM
|
|
Dave Winer zeroes in on a "non-technical" defintion of a weblog; non-technical, but highly focused, and on "the Right Stuff". The stuff is the voice; the person, coming through, first and foremost.
8:22:12 AM
|
|
| |
