<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
<title type="text">Joseph Reagle</title>
<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[
Open Communities, Media, Source, and Standards
]]></subtitle>
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/community/community-versus-media</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/community/community-versus-media?flav=atom" />


<author>
<name>Joseph Reagle</name>
<uri>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/community/community-versus-media</uri>
<email></email>
</author>
<rights>Copyright 2003-2010 Joseph Reagle</rights>
<generator uri="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/" version="1.4.3 01/10/2008">
PyBlosxom http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/ 1.4.3 01/10/2008
</generator>

<updated>2003-11-19T21:31:20Z</updated>
<!-- icon?  logo?  -->

<entry>
<title type="html">Chicken and Egg: Community v. Media</title>
<category term="" />
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/2003/11/19/community-versus-media</id>
<updated>2003-11-19T21:31:20Z</updated>
<published>2003-11-19T21:31:20Z</published>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/community/community-versus-media.html" />
<content type="html">

&lt;p&gt;People often expect a media to engender community: &quot;I&apos;m blogging but not
getting enough comments!&quot;, or &quot;if I put up a Wiki, they will come.&quot; But if
you look at the amount of blog dead wood &amp;mdash; some estimate &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.perseus.com/blogsurvey/&quot;&gt;2/3 of blogs never got out of
infancy&lt;/a&gt; &amp;mdash; this is clearly not the case. The degree to which the
community and media prompt and depend on each other can be complex, and
differ across media genres. A common form of this mistake is what I refer to
as the &quot;fat end of the scale&quot; fallacy: people look at the &quot;fat&quot; part of a
scaling system and think, &quot;Wow, a Wiki could support 1000 different
collaborators.&quot; Sure, but even systems that scaled to 100,000 start small; it
is in the genesis, the first one to three folks collaborating, that the
community is born and the ball starts rolling.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;My current belief is that Wiki&apos;s are inappropriate for starting a
community. The best way to get a Wiki rolling is to use it as a collaborative
&quot;white board&quot; for a pre-existing email list or IRC channel. People scribble
to it and reference it, and that prompts others to investigate and perhaps
contribute. One reason for this characteristic of Wikis is social psychology.
The norms surrounding stepping on someone else&apos;s toes when editing or
deleting their text are powerful: they inhibit participation or prompt easily
hurt feelings. Having an existing community where the participants know each
other and the community&apos;s norms mitigate this deficiency.&lt;/p&gt;
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
