Yes! I also think it is important to acknowledge aspects of context when looking at motivations for contributing. Simply asking "why do people contribute to online communities/networks/pools of knowledge" can be misleading. To me, motivations are closely related to other apects of the context. So to rephrase the question (by borrowing from gift-giving theory), I think it could be: "what is given/contributed to whom, how and why" where "why" is dependent on the other parts of the question above. What - the characteristics/values of digital goods To whom - the types of relationships involved How - the sociotechnical means for contributing at hand Why - the motivation Possibly the question could be elaborated to include "who", "where" and "when" as well. Also, to follow up on the differences between anonymous and identified contributions, I think there are a number of dimensions that can be fruitfully explored in relation to specific tools and contexts for online contributions (i.e. "how"): Identification (anonymous to identified) Limitation (open to restricted) Incentive (enforced to voluntary) Direction (private to public) Initiative (passive to active) In my mind the concepts above are poles at the ends of a continuum. Thus, it becomes particularly interesting to examine how users, who change preferences, engage with sociotechnical features in order (try) to move from one pole to the other. Notably, the dimensions above are only an initital number - there are certainly more that could be applied. Kind regards Jorgen Skageby Post-doctoral Research Fellow Dept. of Journalism, Media and Communication (JMK) Stockholm University
From: Zeynep Tufekci <socnetres@gmail.com> Reply-To: <socnetres@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:22:39 -0500 To: AIR <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Subject: Re: [Air-L] user generated content, motivation to post
Is the thinking that motivations for commenting on products and services differ significantly from motivations for other types of online participation? Many product evaluation systems are social environments; a few are not. I doubt that same kinds of people populate both to same degree. It might not be a good idea to lump them together.
An interesting tack might be to compare systems that allow for identity and reputation development with those that are truly anonymous -- where there is no handle with which to develop an identity.
-z
-- Zeynep Tufekci, Ph.D. Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Maryland, Baltimore County 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD zeynep@umbc.edu @techsoc http://www.technosociology.org