[NetBehaviour] Communication in Online Communities

Thu Oct 8 16:55:56 CEST 2015

Ken, Lots of interesting ideas and observations here. I think it would be interesting to all of those who have been participating in this discussion to show examples / models / artworks / publications that build from and inform online discussion. 

For example there is a book by Jordan Crandall, Interaction: Artistic Practice in the Network
http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Artistic-Practice-John-Johnson/dp/1891024248
A print publication that drew from the Crumb list. 

Charlotte Frost led a month of discussion on Crumb about art history online
http://digitalcritic.org/blog/tag/crumb/

And I created a work for ZKM’s Net_Condition show in 1999, The Telematic Manifesto
http://www.zakros.com/manifesto/transformation/transformation.html
In which I organized an online discussion into a hypermedia, color-coded, Web document. 

I am sure there are many projects that have emerged from NetBehaviour. It would be helpful to share them. 

Randall

From:  <netbehaviour-bounces at netbehaviour.org> on behalf of Kenneth Fields
Reply-To:  NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
Date:  Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 11:36 AM
To:  <NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
Subject:  [NetBehaviour]   Communication in Online Communities

Hi,
Responding to Randall’s:

 Are we really using database technologically effectively to understand and organize the underlying narrative of our conversation and collaborative work? How would we ever access all the DIWO projects that have been produced here? 

The lists I follow all have their unique character; nettime, empyre, netbehavior, network cultures,
unlike-us, Yasmin, leonardo/isast, rhizome, etc. Beyond that, our lists/newsletters start to get 
more specific: ACMA, CEC, EMS, Jacktrip, ANET, ANAT. Then there’s the Facebook/Twitter/G+ 
streams with two id’s (prof/personal).

My own (and student’s) postings are more part of the Dark Net, like dark matter, invisible substance
that comprises an unknown quantity of network discourse - being a series of 
gnusocial/statusNet instances and an old tikiwiki site (Canada Research Chair 2008-2013),
completely focused on Syneme’s preoccupation with live network music performance.

The big question: organizing the conversation. I was early inspired by wiki’s and 
moos and the structured discourse space they created. my dissertation was
an immersive theory space. then blogs came along favoring the timeline -
though there was categorization with tags. The hashtag was a brilliant invention. I wrote
a paper about folkontologies (like folksonomies), thinking that people would take
up the practice of onto-tagging as easily as they did hashtagging (organized sound 12.2). 
The creation of the SUO (standard upper ontology and middle ontologies) was like the building 
of the pyramids, but the lower layers depended on domain specific knowledge (the conversations,
with embedded onto-tags). That never happened.

Listserv’s don’t have tags. it would be hard to structure these archives now.
Listserves are organized by their subject headings… and you can see from this conversation, 
we should be talking about Geert Lovink.

What ever happened to the onto-movement. I wanted to build an ontology moo
and have people move in. Building ontologies from the inside out; as easily as 
making a wiki-link, an onto-link could create emergent ontologies. I would hang out 
around ‘network' and ‘music_electronic.' I’d build a bridge between 
networked&music_electronic. We’d have discussions in these spaces and 
the ontologies would organically grow like molecules (ontocules) via onto-tags 
embedded in the conversation.

then at least you’d have a machine readable noosphere. 

I even saw real architecture mimicking this onto-space, so that you’d be assured that
your local bookstore would carry mostly books about networked electronic music. 
And that your buddies in the local cafe would all be net artists and musicians.

Ken

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:42:57 -0400
From: Randall Packer <rpacker at zakros.com>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
Subject: [NetBehaviour]  Communication in Online Communities
Message-ID: <5E0C705A-331D-4788-A68B-E44DB4A4313E at zakros.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I want to express a note of thanks to all those who have been participating in this interesting conversation. I have also adjusted the topic because we abandoned Geert?s interview long ago. 

I think this is a fascinating and relevant discussion for NetBehaviour and I too hope it will lead to a more focused discussion that could potentially lead to action. But in the meantime, it is an important conversation, because there are many here and elsewhere who are grappling with information flows among online communities: grappling with the conservation of knowledge, the ease of access, open source issues, sharing, collaboration and transparency. Clearly there is no one way of doing this, but I would propose that rather than getting overly fixated here on the list with the technical complexities of specific software and hardware solutions, which is enough to make anyone dizzy, (I agree with Annie this may be better served in a focus group), that here in NetBehaviour there is an opportunity to think broadly about collaborative online spaces that aspire to provide an alternative to the geographical and social limitations of face to face. 

I don?t think anyone here is suggesting a radical shift away from the ease and access of email, but rather understanding what is possible and what do online communities require to serve their needs. For me, one of the main reasons to be engaged here is to get to know artists from around the world, what they are working on, their ideas, etc. But another important reason is to participate in a shared knowledge base. This was the dream of Vannevar Bush back in the 1940s with his famous essay ?As We May Think,? where he discussed the idea of the ?cultural record? built by online communities with their communications threads and histories and digressions. He was concerned back then with how to organize the information flow, and now 70 years later, we are still grappling with the same issue. 

There are many important ideas embedded in this list, with trails of creative thought and production that lead in various directions. But how do you follow these trails? How do you search them? How do you distill them? Are we really using database technologically effectively to understand and organize the underlying narrative of our conversation and collaborative work? How would we ever access all the DIWO projects that have been produced here? 

These are the questions I am interested in and how they can be best served within the context of the collaborative online community of NetBehaviour. 

From:  <netbehaviour-bounces at netbehaviour.org> on behalf of Annie Abrahams
Reply-To:  NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
Date:  Monday, October 5, 2015 at 7:07 AM
To:  NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity, ruth catlow
Subject:  Re: [NetBehaviour] Solutionism Re: An interview with Geert Lovink

_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

End of NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 2505, Issue 1
*********************************************

_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20151008/7e38f943/attachment.htm>