Hi all, I suppose it is poetic justice that I feel the need to de-lurk to add to the lurking thread... Responding to Karim R. Lakhani's comments:
I guess there are no costs involved in someone lurking on an e-mail list but what about the opportunity cost to the community by that person not participating. Are they just free riding on the effort of the dedicated contributors? Would their participation and information provision help the community members?
The implication here is that everyone on a list should be active, which seems neither probable, reasonable, or desireable. Probable: Not everyone has an interest in every topic discussed on a list. Reasonable: If A agrees with B entirely, why should A waste the list's time by simply posting in an "I agree". Not wasting bandwidth in that fashion has, indeed, been part of netiquette for a long time. Desireable: Adding to both the above points, imagine the immense traffic involved with everyone on this list posting just once to every comment... it would be an expoentially disasterous situation of information overload. Furthermore, is it not somewhat draconian to expect everyone to voice an opinion to everything? Social life simply does not work like that. Not everyone offers an opinion about everything said at a party, and despite the difference in system-level structure an email list is not so different as to either negate deeply entrenched social norms, nor to impose new ones. If that was the case, I suspect people would stop using such systems. This brings us to:
What would happen if those 15% started their own private list?
Completely closed lists, like completely closed clubs, have limited shelf-lives. Without an influx of new members a list goes stale. Also, if an active 15% started a new list, the chance that every member would stay active would be very limited. In fact, perhaps 15% activity holds for almost any sized list - I doubt it's so clear cut, but judging by previous posts on group activity, it is more probable than, to take the opposite, 85% activity. Furthermore, to revitalize a closed list new members are needed - even if only by invitation - and when that occurs, the notions of probability, reasonableness, and desireability are likely to apply once again. Personally, I value being able to drop in and out of lists. And, I might add, when I'm new to a list I wait a fair while before posting for the first time, to get the flavor of the social group that I'm dealing with and also to make sure I have something to say. I've also noted that my list activity is cyclical. Sometimes I'm a list maniac, other times I prefer to a monitor. Why this is I'm not sure - a combination of personal circumstances and the topics on the list, I suppose. Actually, that brings me to a final point: I like to do other things than being an active list-member, but I like to know what's going on, so I monitor. I am part of the 'interested' community, so I don't feel that I am 'sponging from the list'. Opportunity cost, if that is going to be a notion used to calculate list-member value, has a problem in that it must involve the opportunity costs of the rest of my life. Speaking of which, I must dash, and thus Until Anon, Sean -- E. Sean Rintel Communication Department University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY, USA, 12222 http://www.albany.edu/~er8430/
ha! made you de-lurk :-) i was not implying that everyone should participate in every conversation but it would seem that people should participate in a discussion that is appropriate. like you did! i am against full time free-riding. it would be interesting for the list owner of this list to calculate the free rider component of this list. i.e. how many have signed on and how many have participated even once, vs pure non-participants. thus your appearance is welcome! thanks "E. Sean Rintel" wrote:
Hi all,
I suppose it is poetic justice that I feel the need to de-lurk to add to the lurking thread...
Responding to Karim R. Lakhani's comments:
I guess there are no costs involved in someone lurking on an e-mail list but what about the opportunity cost to the community by that person not participating. Are they just free riding on the effort of the dedicated contributors? Would their participation and information provision help the community members?
The implication here is that everyone on a list should be active, which seems neither probable, reasonable, or desireable.
Probable: Not everyone has an interest in every topic discussed on a list.
Reasonable: If A agrees with B entirely, why should A waste the list's time by simply posting in an "I agree". Not wasting bandwidth in that fashion has, indeed, been part of netiquette for a long time.
Desireable: Adding to both the above points, imagine the immense traffic involved with everyone on this list posting just once to every comment... it would be an expoentially disasterous situation of information overload. Furthermore, is it not somewhat draconian to expect everyone to voice an opinion to everything? Social life simply does not work like that. Not everyone offers an opinion about everything said at a party, and despite the difference in system-level structure an email list is not so different as to either negate deeply entrenched social norms, nor to impose new ones. If that was the case, I suspect people would stop using such systems.
This brings us to:
What would happen if those 15% started their own private list?
Completely closed lists, like completely closed clubs, have limited shelf-lives. Without an influx of new members a list goes stale. Also, if an active 15% started a new list, the chance that every member would stay active would be very limited. In fact, perhaps 15% activity holds for almost any sized list - I doubt it's so clear cut, but judging by previous posts on group activity, it is more probable than, to take the opposite, 85% activity. Furthermore, to revitalize a closed list new members are needed - even if only by invitation - and when that occurs, the notions of probability, reasonableness, and desireability are likely to apply once again.
Personally, I value being able to drop in and out of lists. And, I might add, when I'm new to a list I wait a fair while before posting for the first time, to get the flavor of the social group that I'm dealing with and also to make sure I have something to say. I've also noted that my list activity is cyclical. Sometimes I'm a list maniac, other times I prefer to a monitor. Why this is I'm not sure - a combination of personal circumstances and the topics on the list, I suppose. Actually, that brings me to a final point: I like to do other things than being an active list-member, but I like to know what's going on, so I monitor. I am part of the 'interested' community, so I don't feel that I am 'sponging from the list'. Opportunity cost, if that is going to be a notion used to calculate list-member value, has a problem in that it must involve the opportunity costs of the rest of my life.
Speaking of which, I must dash, and thus Until Anon,
Sean
--
E. Sean Rintel Communication Department University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY, USA, 12222 http://www.albany.edu/~er8430/
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- =================================== Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Open Source Research Project e-mail: lakhani@mit.edu voice: 617-851-1224 fax: 617-344-0403 http://opensource.mit.edu http://mit.edu/lakhani/www ===================================
*i was not implying that everyone should participate in every conversation but it would seem that people should participate in a discussion that is appropriate. like you did! i am against full time free-riding. it would be interesting for the list owner of this list to calculate the free rider component of this list. i.e. how many have signed on and how many have participated even once, vs pure non-participants* difficult one this as I think perhaps i would show up as being fairly quiet on the list.....but am i really a *free-riding lurker* ???.......my old grandaddy used to say .....'better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it'.....and i thought i was taking his advice denise carter
The "Free Rider" concept suggests to me that the value of e-lists are in their content. Rather, I would suggest, the real value of an e-list comes from participation, thus those who are only "monitoring/lurking" are not getting as much value from the list (feedback, recognition, networking and so on), as those who are actively participating. Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. (Visiting) Professor: School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org]On Behalf Of Karim R. Lakhani Sent: January 23, 2002 5:44 PM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Lurking ha! made you de-lurk :-) i was not implying that everyone should participate in every conversation but it would seem that people should participate in a discussion that is appropriate. like you did! i am against full time free-riding. it would be interesting for the list owner of this list to calculate the free rider component of this list. i.e. how many have signed on and how many have participated even once, vs pure non-participants. thus your appearance is welcome! thanks "E. Sean Rintel" wrote:
Hi all,
I suppose it is poetic justice that I feel the need to de-lurk to add to the lurking thread...
Responding to Karim R. Lakhani's comments:
I guess there are no costs involved in someone lurking on an e-mail list but what about the opportunity cost to the community by that person not participating. Are they just free riding on the effort of the dedicated contributors? Would their participation and information provision help the community members?
The implication here is that everyone on a list should be active, which seems neither probable, reasonable, or desireable.
Probable: Not everyone has an interest in every topic discussed on a list.
Reasonable: If A agrees with B entirely, why should A waste the list's
time
by simply posting in an "I agree". Not wasting bandwidth in that fashion has, indeed, been part of netiquette for a long time.
Desireable: Adding to both the above points, imagine the immense traffic involved with everyone on this list posting just once to every comment... it would be an expoentially disasterous situation of information overload. Furthermore, is it not somewhat draconian to expect everyone to voice an opinion to everything? Social life simply does not work like that. Not everyone offers an opinion about everything said at a party, and despite the difference in system-level structure an email list is not so different as to either negate deeply entrenched social norms, nor to impose new ones. If that was the case, I suspect people would stop using such systems.
This brings us to:
What would happen if those 15% started their own private list?
Completely closed lists, like completely closed clubs, have limited shelf-lives. Without an influx of new members a list goes stale. Also, if an active 15% started a new list, the chance that every member would stay active would be very limited. In fact, perhaps 15% activity holds for almost any sized list - I doubt it's so clear cut, but judging by previous posts on group activity, it is more probable than, to take the opposite, 85% activity. Furthermore, to revitalize a closed list new members are needed - even if only by invitation - and when that occurs, the notions of probability, reasonableness, and desireability are likely to apply once again.
Personally, I value being able to drop in and out of lists. And, I might add, when I'm new to a list I wait a fair while before posting for the first time, to get the flavor of the social group that I'm dealing with and also to make sure I have something to say. I've also noted that my list activity is cyclical. Sometimes I'm a list maniac, other times I prefer to a monitor. Why this is I'm not sure - a combination of personal circumstances and the topics on the list, I suppose. Actually, that brings me to a final point: I like to do other things than being an active list-member, but I like to know what's going on, so I monitor. I am part of the 'interested' community, so I don't feel that I am 'sponging from the list'. Opportunity cost, if that is going to be a notion used to calculate list-member value, has a problem in that it must involve the opportunity costs of the rest of my life.
Speaking of which, I must dash, and thus Until Anon,
Sean
--
E. Sean Rintel Communication Department University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY, USA, 12222 http://www.albany.edu/~er8430/
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- =================================== Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Open Source Research Project e-mail: lakhani@mit.edu voice: 617-851-1224 fax: 617-344-0403 http://opensource.mit.edu http://mit.edu/lakhani/www =================================== _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Hello, I'm doing some research with people involved in non-profit organizations and their use of 'new media'. I am trying to find out how exactly they use technology to organize and navigate through information, what types of information is transferred between groups and why users essentially engage the technology in this case, for social change. I'm interested in gaining a deeper understanding about horizontal and vertical flows of communication, physical connectivity, data communality, interactivity and ease of use in organizing social-change networks within a technological framework for democratic advancement. I'm preparing a focus group session, and with such a wealth of different ideas/individuals/thoughts on this listserve, I was wondering if any of you had some ideas as to what types of questions you would ask...what explorations do you think are worthy in this area? What specific questions would you ask if you were in this focus group with non-profits? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide...I will be sure to share any information I gain from the meeting. Linda Jean Kensicki
participants (5)
-
denise -
E. Sean Rintel -
Karim R. Lakhani -
Linda Jean Kensicki -
Michael Gurstein