Planning Online Communities
[NOTE: I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this; I just need to work something through mentally and this is as good a place as any to do it.]
Plan to throw one away. You will anyhow.
There’s a saying in the FOSS world that is something to the effect of “plan to throw one away. you will anyhow”. I believe this concept was originally proposed in Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and The Bazaar”, which discussed the devolved nature of open source development and has since became a hallmark piece of work within the movement. (Someone please correct my source if I’m wrong)
The idea suggests that the first version of a project won’t hit the target square on, because you don’t know what the real target is. Indeed, subsequent versions may be entirely different from the original objective in both form and function.
So effectively you don’t know what you’re trying to resolve or what need you’re trying to address until after you make the first attempt. Having done that you can evaluate, discover, uncover, discard and then refocus on the true need.
If this notion is true it requires a great deal of flexibility and an exploratory willingness to experiment with trial and error to get a software environment right.
However…
This is a relatively straight forward concept for standalone software development, but what are the implications when the software is slated to support a wider project, such as an online/offline community that is being developed in tandem?
I would argue there are a couple of fundamental choices that have to be made and hardwired into the planning and developmental processes, but after that the development process is relatively similar to the exploratory model outlined above.
The role of the individual
The first choice relates to the role of the individual in the usage landscape, particularly with regards to networks – and even more so with groups. Different models view the individual in different lights – and distinguishing them from the whole to varying degrees - and this affects all subsequent downstream activities in the online space.
Perhaps the best contrasting examples of this in the contemporary snapshot of the Internet are the notions of connectivism and collectivism. Very loosely stated, the differences in these ideas can be characterised by the difference between blogs and wikis respectively.
Blogs are highly individual spaces that clearly delineate the blogger/individual from those who visit the space. Commenting and discussion certainly take place in these spaces, however the place of the individual is ultimately at the top of the heirarchy, and their persona is clearly represented.
Wikis by contrast, are by nature a multi-user space in which content is aggregated together to form a unified, cohesive whole. Here the user is a means to an end; where the end is the gathering and sharing of a body of knowledge created by a group-mind. Many wiki engines support user profiles, however in the scheme of things they are a secondary or tertiary consideration.
This notion was highlighted in a different way by Stephen Downes in his video “Groups and Networks”. Downes argues that groups are inherently heirarchical, closed and rigid; networks are more equalised, open, and flexible. In terms of this discussion, groups place more consideration and emphasis on the priorities of the whole; networks on the those of the individual.
I would argue that Downes’ network model is more beneficial to the individual, as it provides them with space to come to their own conclusions, and to voice their own opinions and thoughts. It is also arguably more representative of the diversity in the community.
In the network model you hear a cacophony or chorus of different voices; in the group it’s more of a single voice characterising the overall consensus.
In terms of this discussion, the significance during planning is to establish who or what is at the centre of the model. A user-focused community will place the individual at the centre, and relate all activities in the environment back to the individual, via a unique user space such as a profile in a social network in the case of a centralised model; or perhaps a personal blog in a decentralised one. Alternatively, a group-focused community will place the group at the centre and relate all activities back to the group.
Centralised versus Distributed
The next key consideration is the nature of the community space. The idea of a “community space” can take many forms, not all of which involve a single online location - such as a wiki, social networking tool, or discussion forum. Increasingly a single community can span multiple environments and include several activity-specific sites such as those for image sharing (e.g. Flickr), rapid asynchronous discussion (e.g. Twitter, Jaiku, Identi.ca), blogs, discussion forums or all of the above.
The ultimate decision here can impact on several different topics, not the least of which include centralised versus devolved control, administrative considerations, activities, the nature of community interaction, and indeed what opportunities exist for the community members themselves.
[More to come as I continue to think this through...]
