where does the term "lurking" come from
As one of the age-oldest (64) and email-oldest (since 1976) members of this list, I'd like to hazard a remembrance of where the term "lurking" comes. (Speaking of which, where is Blair Nonnecke, because that's what his diss was on?) In times past, the vision was a small, tightly-knit virtual community all communing with each other. (Think of the WELL). In that vision, non-communicators were not playing by the rules of the game of the active community. They were "lurking" while others were active community builders. Now, it's pretty clear that most people move among a bunch of partial communities, participating to various extent in some but not others. They are readers in some/many, and more or less contributors to others. This is true online as well as offline. So "lurking" only makes sense in things like a small workgroup or family circle, where all are expected to communicate. It makes no sense for this large list, or for others. PS: Thanks to James Whyte for his count of who participates. One slight methodological flaw. If there are 1800 on this list now, there probably are > 2000 who have been on at some point in the past 12 months in which he counted participation. So the denominator is off. Hence the proportion of contributors is probably low by 10 to 20%. But still, this is an impressively active list. Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman For fun -- updating songs, movies and history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing Return to Sender now _____________________________________________________________________
Among the many lists I manage is the college and university webmasters list (UWEBD), which now has upwards of 2,500 members. No flame wars, ever, and lots of good info. But most of the posts are by a (relatively) small group of a couple hundred posters. As Barry noted, "lurkers" in the early years may have been the minority. They are surely in the majority now in the lists that I manage. Maybe what we need is a term that positively describes the minority of really active list members and recognizes that most people join and appreciate but do not post much, if at all. So, let's call those who post "contributors" and everyone is a "member." If someone needs to say about themselves what would have been "I just lurk," they can instead say that "I am not a contributor." -- Terry Calhoun, MA, JD Director of Media Relations and Publications Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) terry.calhoun@scup.org | 734.998.7027 | www.scup.org | AIM = "splendid1" 339 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
Heck, I don't like that, either, though. Still too negative. There is immense value in having lots of people connected, even if most are silent. Terry Calhoun wrote:
Among the many lists I manage is the college and university webmasters list (UWEBD), which now has upwards of 2,500 members. No flame wars, ever, and lots of good info. But most of the posts are by a (relatively) small group of a couple hundred posters.
As Barry noted, "lurkers" in the early years may have been the minority. They are surely in the majority now in the lists that I manage.
Maybe what we need is a term that positively describes the minority of really active list members and recognizes that most people join and appreciate but do not post much, if at all.
So, let's call those who post "contributors" and everyone is a "member." If someone needs to say about themselves what would have been "I just lurk," they can instead say that "I am not a contributor."
-- Terry Calhoun, MA, JD Director of Media Relations and Publications Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) terry.calhoun@scup.org | 734.998.7027 | www.scup.org | AIM = "splendid1" 339 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
Heck, I don't like that, either, though. Still too negative. There is immense value in having lots of people connected, even if most are silent.
Yes. And since there's always the possibility that they could contribute, "lurk" and "lurker" seem perfectly valid terms. Does anyone actually use the term pejoratively in reference to Internet communication? I haven't seen this. And besides, it's well established in its newer definition, I would suggest. Neil Randall
The recent lurker discussion has been interesting but it might be expanded. While we are reviewing list member taxonomies, should we also consider active members? I've read with great interest the distinctions made of active Wiki members such as trolls, vandals, fairies, and contributors. Here's some categories for lists: "doppelgangers" maintain extra list memberships so they can agree (or disagree) as if from many individuals. "Avatars" do not use their own name (this might be further broken out as to reason for not including the signature). "Zealots" keep making the same point and don't appear to pay attention to others. "Snipers" focus their content on correcting others. "Supporters" constantly give encouragement. "Motivators" encourage others to do something. "Fishers" want to get some information on a specific topic and seldom come back without a specific need. "Librarians" provide helpful links to germane information. Since they have an administrative role, moderators might be a third phylum. Some "leader" moderators provide direction to content. Some simply remove inappropriate content or otherwise act as "gatekeepers." "Evangelists" actively try to build the content and membership. How about categorizing members who do not respond beyond the simple lurker? Many list stakeholders may believe the majority of list recipients who do not participate beyond their membership are lurking. I suspect that the stakeholders are wrong. I don't think there is a way to tell which list members are reading the content (lurking) but not otherwise participating versus persons who just are not reviewing the content and may never even see the content. As a case in point, I've joined or been added to a variety of lists. It is often easier for me to make the list disappear from my inbox by placing the list sender on my spam list than to try to figure out how to unsubscribe through "normal" channels. In many cases, adding a filter is preferable because playing with a list can be like playing with a tar baby (I.E. a request to be removed from a spam list can get you added to a dozen more lists). Sometimes I use a filter because I'm just lazy. Either way, a filter type of unsubscribe would not be caught by a simple list probe. How can we categorize participants who do not respond? Perhaps we could have "skimmers" who just check the subject header. "Dippers" who read a paragraph or two -- sometimes more. "Scholars" who read everything. "Misers" who have ideas they might contribute but don't want anyone to steal their ideas while very happy to use the ideas of others. "Ghosts" who don't read anything. Darn, I think I've got an interesting paper started here. Anybody interested in coauthoring? Charles Balch Ph.D. Professor of Computer Information Systems Arizona Western College
Thanks Barry. That's the point I was making in a previous post -- listservs, blogs, and so on are not communities but sets of diverse participants with thin relations -- important and vibrant relations, but not somewhere where one can meaningfully be said to "lurk." -- Bonnie On May 10, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Barry Wellman wrote:
As one of the age-oldest (64) and email-oldest (since 1976) members of this list, I'd like to hazard a remembrance of where the term "lurking" comes. (Speaking of which, where is Blair Nonnecke, because that's what his diss was on?)
In times past, the vision was a small, tightly-knit virtual community all communing with each other. (Think of the WELL). In that vision, non-communicators were not playing by the rules of the game of the active community. They were "lurking" while others were active community builders.
Now, it's pretty clear that most people move among a bunch of partial communities, participating to various extent in some but not others. They are readers in some/many, and more or less contributors to others. This is true online as well as offline. So "lurking" only makes sense in things like a small workgroup or family circle, where all are expected to communicate. It makes no sense for this large list, or for others.
PS: Thanks to James Whyte for his count of who participates. One slight methodological flaw. If there are 1800 on this list now, there probably are > 2000 who have been on at some point in the past 12 months in which he counted participation. So the denominator is off. Hence the proportion of contributors is probably low by 10 to 20%. But still, this is an impressively active list.
Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________
Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman For fun -- updating songs, movies and history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Elvis wouldn't be singing Return to Sender now _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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/
Bonnie A. Nardi Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3440 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/
participants (5)
-
Barry Wellman -
Bonnie Nardi -
Charles Balch Ph.D. -
Neil Randall -
Terry Calhoun