Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking
This very same point might well be made in the references mentioned, but to add to the interesting discussion here, I've always thought "auditor" a more appropriate substitute for "lurker," in the same sense as one who "audits" classes. The slipperiness in "lurker" (at least for listservs) seems to be the conflation of two things: "participation" (as in speaking/posting) and "invisibility" (as in anonymity). IMHO the term "lurker" implies not just silence but anonymity or the option of some degree of concealment. A student who "audits" a class can't be very anonymous, but (in some strict sense) is expected to be more of a listener than a speaker (compared to the norm). "Speaking" or the more active sorts of participation are usually primarily the decision of individual members, but the level of "anonymity" afforded them is the product of decisions by both members AND list moderators/owners. AIR-L, for example, is configured so that the subscriber list is only accessible to list moderators and owners; members cannot know who other members are (or more precisely what their email addresses are) unless they post that information or otherwise provide their consent. Listservs where that information is also accessible to members lean more in the direction of enabling "auditing" (though even there, members can retain anonymity via email aliases and the like). The "negative" connotations of "lurker" have both to do with passivity or a perceived lack of community commitment (via "participation") AND with anonymity or concealment. Both models (communities that enable "lurking" or "auditing") offer distinct advantages, obviously. --Lane DeNicola Message: 16 Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:11:57 +0200 From: Ulf-Dietrich Reips <ureips@genpsy.unizh.ch> Subject: Re: [Air-l] we need a better word than lurking To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Message-ID: <p06230931c26633dfa757@[10.0.1.3]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hi Barry, all, you might be interested in the following two works: Stegbauer, C. & Rausch, A. (2002). Lurkers in mailing lists. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 263-274). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Bosnjak, M. (2001). Participation in non-restricted web surveys: A typology and explanatory model for item non- response. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 193-208). Lengerich: Pabst. While the first one is from the area of social network theory, the second one proposes a highly useful typology of non-responders in online research. In Bosnjak's view, lurkers are just one of seven types. While created for online research, the typology seems useful for other purposes as well. Best --u -- Lane DeNicola Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.nacresky.com/lad Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>
Read-only user or participant Regards, Dan Prives Where Most Needed The Charity Industry Blog http://www.wheremostneeded.org
Thank you Barry Wellman for introducing this very informative and interesting thread. There is a general context in which lurking is not desirable. Before the digital age there were public libraries. Even thought the books in the library were available and use was free and encouraged, most people were "lurkers" or perhaps more correctly non-users. On most long established lists, many of the registered members are no longer readers. Another group that my experience tells me is almost as large, read occasionally selected topics but seldom if ever respond. Several of you are clear about the benefits of people who are unsure what they have to say, just keeping quiet. "Less noise" is desirable. But Peter Timusk is also correct in his observation that expounding half baked ideas and exposing one's lack of understanding is part of the active learning process we are all engaged in. People who lurk, excessively may assume that they are saving time. It is my contention that they are missing learning opportunities. Once you commit yourself to an opinion in public you begin to pay attention to the reaction to that in a way lurkers seldom understand. Paying attention increases your learning rate because you are now involved. (The hen and the pig are involved in producing my breakfast in quite different ways too.) It's that sort of difference. So for me there are two ways in which lurking is undesirable. The first sort of lurker, is "lurking not present". Absent from the discussion. A non-user of the library. The second sort lurker, is "lurking but not engaged". Present, borrowing books, reading, but never discussing what was read and never attempting to use what was read in any practical way. Involved like the hen is involved in my breakfast. Participants in the discussion on the other hand, are involved like the pig. The is something at stake. Jericho Burg identifies that sort of lurking that is highly desirable. She says' "For me, subscribing to lists is one way of finding out what conversations are going on in a particular field" ... in which she is not familiar. So true Jericho, which is precisely the reason who I'm part of this list, while my fields are more, Education, Innovation and KM. John S Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz/
Lurking has negative connotations, so I dislike it as a term also, I have always thought of this activity as "grazing", implies a non malicious activity of consuming what is freely available, as and when suits the grazer and fits in very neatly with the concept of the commons. I picked up the concept of grazing from Lessig. On 5/10/07, John Veitch <jsveitch@ate.co.nz> wrote:
Thank you Barry Wellman for introducing this very informative and interesting thread.
There is a general context in which lurking is not desirable.
Before the digital age there were public libraries. Even thought the books in the library were available and use was free and encouraged, most people were "lurkers" or perhaps more correctly non-users.
On most long established lists, many of the registered members are no longer readers. Another group that my experience tells me is almost as large, read occasionally selected topics but seldom if ever respond.
Several of you are clear about the benefits of people who are unsure what they have to say, just keeping quiet. "Less noise" is desirable. But Peter Timusk is also correct in his observation that expounding half baked ideas and exposing one's lack of understanding is part of the active learning process we are all engaged in.
People who lurk, excessively may assume that they are saving time. It is my contention that they are missing learning opportunities. Once you commit yourself to an opinion in public you begin to pay attention to the reaction to that in a way lurkers seldom understand. Paying attention increases your learning rate because you are now involved. (The hen and the pig are involved in producing my breakfast in quite different ways too.) It's that sort of difference.
So for me there are two ways in which lurking is undesirable. The first sort of lurker, is "lurking not present". Absent from the discussion. A non-user of the library. The second sort lurker, is "lurking but not engaged". Present, borrowing books, reading, but never discussing what was read and never attempting to use what was read in any practical way. Involved like the hen is involved in my breakfast.
Participants in the discussion on the other hand, are involved like the pig. The is something at stake.
Jericho Burg identifies that sort of lurking that is highly desirable. She says' "For me, subscribing to lists is one way of finding out what conversations are going on in a particular field" ... in which she is not familiar. So true Jericho, which is precisely the reason who I'm part of this list, while my fields are more, Education, Innovation and KM.
John S Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Martin Garthwaite PhD candidate, London Knowledge Lab www.lkl.ac.uk +447957 764819 Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.com
There's an excellent, well known study of the Apache user support lists which, if I may hazard a summary, found that 98% of the time spent with the list was reading, not posting, and that the primary motivation for being on the list, by far, was learning by reading (thus observing the question/answer exchanges). This was enough to keep enough people on the list so that questions could be answered without great effort because one of the group attracted by reading knew the answer 'off the top of their head'. So the lurking, and the learning by lurking, is crucial to the 'critical mass' of the list. Learning by talking/doing, as John writes below, is great, but learning by reading is also crucial to the effectiveness of these task-oriented communities. Lakhani, K. and von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: “free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32:923–943. http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lakhanivonhippelusersupport.pdf Cheers, James On May 10, 2007, at 5:54 AM, John Veitch wrote:
Thank you Barry Wellman for introducing this very informative and interesting thread.
There is a general context in which lurking is not desirable.
Before the digital age there were public libraries. Even thought the books in the library were available and use was free and encouraged, most people were "lurkers" or perhaps more correctly non-users.
On most long established lists, many of the registered members are no longer readers. Another group that my experience tells me is almost as large, read occasionally selected topics but seldom if ever respond.
Several of you are clear about the benefits of people who are unsure what they have to say, just keeping quiet. "Less noise" is desirable. But Peter Timusk is also correct in his observation that expounding half baked ideas and exposing one's lack of understanding is part of the active learning process we are all engaged in.
People who lurk, excessively may assume that they are saving time. It is my contention that they are missing learning opportunities. Once you commit yourself to an opinion in public you begin to pay attention to the reaction to that in a way lurkers seldom understand. Paying attention increases your learning rate because you are now involved. (The hen and the pig are involved in producing my breakfast in quite different ways too.) It's that sort of difference.
So for me there are two ways in which lurking is undesirable. The first sort of lurker, is "lurking not present". Absent from the discussion. A non-user of the library. The second sort lurker, is "lurking but not engaged". Present, borrowing books, reading, but never discussing what was read and never attempting to use what was read in any practical way. Involved like the hen is involved in my breakfast.
Participants in the discussion on the other hand, are involved like the pig. The is something at stake.
Jericho Burg identifies that sort of lurking that is highly desirable. She says' "For me, subscribing to lists is one way of finding out what conversations are going on in a particular field" ... in which she is not familiar. So true Jericho, which is precisely the reason who I'm part of this list, while my fields are more, Education, Innovation and KM.
John S Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz/ _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
James, You're correct, but I'n not sure what you're describing is lurking. Many years ago I was a sysop on a Novell newsgroup / usenet supporting a commercial companies products for free, why? Well when I needed the answer to a question I would go to the support group and look for answers, it just so happened that I knew the answers to a lot of questions that others were posting so I would answer them. Novell staff monitored this group, but did not provide answers to questions. If an individual posted enough quality asnwers they would invite you to become a sysop (system operator). The point I'm making is that a list server such as this distributes to all members, just because you may not be interested in 90% of what comes your way does not make you a lurker. When you need an answer or advice you often get it, that's the point right? If I know the answer to a questioned asked I will answer it, it maybe once a week, once a month, once a year. On 5/10/07, James Howison <jhowison@syr.edu> wrote:
There's an excellent, well known study of the Apache user support lists which, if I may hazard a summary, found that 98% of the time spent with the list was reading, not posting, and that the primary motivation for being on the list, by far, was learning by reading (thus observing the question/answer exchanges). This was enough to keep enough people on the list so that questions could be answered without great effort because one of the group attracted by reading knew the answer 'off the top of their head'.
So the lurking, and the learning by lurking, is crucial to the 'critical mass' of the list. Learning by talking/doing, as John writes below, is great, but learning by reading is also crucial to the effectiveness of these task-oriented communities. Lakhani, K. and von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32:923–943.
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lakhanivonhippelusersupport.pdf
Cheers, James
-- Martin Garthwaite PhD candidate, London Knowledge Lab www.lkl.ac.uk +447957 764819 Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.com
On Thu, 10 May 2007, James Howison wrote:
So the lurking, and the learning by lurking, is crucial to the 'critical mass' of the list.
'Learning by lurking' is why usenet communities used to encourage(!) 'newbies' to lurk for a while before posting as it would help them they obtain a better understanding of the community, its topics and its discussion style. This is why I would argue lurking can be interpreted (to some extent) as 'peripheral participation' in the communities of practice sense. c. -- Dr. Christopher Lueg Professor of Computing University of Tasmania Centenary Building R451 Hobart, TAS, Australia christopher.lueg@utas.edu.au http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~lueg/ CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B
participants (6)
-
Christopher Lueg -
Dan Prives -
James Howison -
John Veitch -
Lane DeNicola -
Martin Garthwaite