Upload
lennart-bjoerneborn
View
1.511
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Lennart Björneborn: præsentation på ph.d.-kursus ved KAF (Kulturarvens Forskerskole) 24.3.2009 på Danmarks Biblioteksskole
Citation preview
Web 2.0, brugerinvolvering og sociale teknologier
Lennart Björneborn
Danmarks [email protected]
KAF-kursus 24-27.3.2009
indhold Web 2.0 = ’participatory web’
Web 2.0 = ’PIM’ + ’social media’
Web 2.0 = brugerskabte
adfærdsspor + social navigation flere ’affordances’/brugspotentialer
for at sætte spor og følge spor
Web 2.0: sociale ’byggesten’
Web 2.0 og Homo Ludens ’funability’ :-)
M.C. Escher: House of Stairs, 1951
New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about.
They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with.
Neil Postman, Technopoly, 1993
”The Web, the Semantic Web, the Web 2.0, and Social Networks are all manifestations of the success of the link.” - Hypertext 2009 Conference: www.ht2009.org
”… vi er på vej ind i linkenes tidsalder … The Link Age …Fremover vil man se links, relationer, som mere fundamentale.” - Nørretranders (2007). Civilisation 2.0. s. 12
‘memex’ = ’memory extender’
Vannevar Bush: ’As we may think’The Atlantic Monthly, juli 1945
videnskabelig kreativitet hæmmes fordi indekseringsmetoder ikke støtter forbindelser på tværs af klassifikationshierarkier
‘trails’ = hyperlinks, relationer mellem tekster – svarende til associationer i hjernen (Bush)
Ted Nelson, 1965 – ’hypertext’
’Libraries of the Future’ (Licklider, 1963) “et intermedie … der gennem et stik i væggen forbinder maskinen med et vidensunderstøttende offentligt netværk”
- computere bruges til kommunikation + samarbejde = relationer
- jf. Douglas Engelbart: human + social augmentation
Tim Berners-Lee CERN, 1989/1990
“power in arranging ideas in an unconstrained, weblike way” “… decentralised, organic growth of ideas, technology, and society.
… allows us to grow faster than we ever could when we were fettered by the
hierarchical classification systems into which we bound ourselves”
Berners-Lee (1999). Weaving the Web.
WWW = Internet + hypertextWWW = Internet + hypertext
PIM + social media info.systemer til både personlig info.management (PIM)
og verdensomspændende videndeling / samarbejde
PIM: Personal Info. Management
Jones, William (2008). Keeping Found Things Found: The Study and Practice of Personal Information Management.
fra PIM til ’WIM’ og derimellem
redskaber til Information Management (IM)
Person
Group
Organization
Society
World
P
G
O
S
W
’OIM’ fx: CERN intranet
’WIM’ fx: WWW
’SIM’ fx: bibliotek.dk
PIM fx: Bush ’Memex’
GIM fx: fællesmail
© Björneborn
WWW: PIM/GIM OIM WIM LIM/SIM
L Localization ’LIM’ fx: wiki for byen Davis, Calif.
Ericsson Medialab
Internet = computer-netværk
WWW = dokument-netværk
ww
w.c
ybe
rge
ogra
phy.
org
/atla
s/
Ada
mic
et
al.
(200
3).
A s
ocia
l net
wor
k ca
ught
in t
he W
eb
Web 2.0 = person-netværk
”networked individualism” (Wellmann et al. 2003)”networked individualism” (Wellmann et al. 2003)
web 2.0 = PIM + social media
Web 2.0 = “participatory Web” = “architecture of participation” Web 2.0 = bottom-up = “user-added value”
Web 2.0 = buzzword: Tim O’Reilly 2004
Web 2.0 = connect + create + collaborate + share + remix + ..
interpersonelle, sociale medier til interaktion, videndeling, samarbejde
blogs, RSS, wikis, tagging, folksonomier, sociale netværkssteder, mm.
Web 2.0 = Web “0.0” = Tim Berners-Lee’s idé med WWW 1989/1990
redskaber til videndeling og samarbejde
web 2.0 = social software
”… supports, extends, or derives added value from human social behaviour …”Tom Coates’ blog: www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of
_social_software
“2.0”-tilgang = brugerskabte adfærdsspor og navigationsmuligheder
nyt brugerbegreb…
deltagere i st.f. modtagere medaktører medskabere producenter + formidlere +
konsumenter informationsarkitekter …?
web 2.0 =
= ’what’s in it for me?’ (PIM)
= ’that may help you too?’ (social media)
= egoisme til fælles gavn :-) (Web 2.0 = PIM + social media)
+ Me = Us
’networked individualism’
’collective intelligence’
web 2.0:
(O’Reilly 2005)
www.wikimindmap.org
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HNL_Wiki_Wiki_Bus.jpg
’wiki-wiki’ = ’super quick’ (Hawaii)
wiki = ’quick web’ – startet 1995
ISBN i Wikipedia
Jakob Voss: http://wm.sieheauch.de
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia
Adamic & Glance (2005).The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election.
’blogometrics’
blogpulse.com
del.icio.us
‘social tagging’ / ‘distributed classification’
‘social tagging’ / ‘distributed classification’
citeulike.org
librarything.comlibrarything.com
www.steve.museum
social tagging in museums
art museums integrate folksonomies into museum webs
visitors add subject tags to museum online collections
“use folksonomic classification to improve access”
Trant et al. (2006). Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums.
Millen et al. (2006). Dogear: social bookmarking in the enterprise
[...]
web 2.0 = brugerskabte adfærdsspor ”information traces” / ”social cues” (Dieberger et al. 2000)
adfærdsspor = tags, kommentarer, rating (+ alle andre web 2.0-ting)
“read wear” / “edit wear” (Hill et al. 1992)
‘wear’ = brug, slid ‘read wear’: fx ‘æselører’ (‘dog-ears’ :-) ‘edit wear’: fx wikis
IBM Dogear = intranet 2.0
jf. Bush (1945): ’trails’jf. Bush (1945): ’trails’
web 2.0 = social navigation (via andres adfærdsspor)
’social navigation’ (Dourish & Chalmers 1994)
Dourish & Chalmers (1994). Running out of space: models of information navigation. Proc. of HCI'94. www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~matthew/papers/hci94.pdf
“moving through an information space and exploiting the activities and orientations of others in that space” (Dourish 2003)
to fundamentale aspekter ved social navigation: ”presence of multiple individuals within some space” ”communication of aspects of their activity to each other” (Dourish 2003)
Dourish (2003). Where the footprints lead: tracking down other roles for social navigation. pp. 273-291. In: Höök, K. et al. (eds.). Designing Information Spaces: the Social Navigation Approach. Springer-Verlag
web 2.0 = ’social hypertext’ websider + links = repræsentationer af mennesker + interesser
Erickson (1996). The World Wide Web as social hypertext.
social navigation / søgestrategi baseret på vores sociale viden: find en, der ved noget, eller find en, der kender en, der ved noget
Web 2.0 = social hypertext interpersonelle, sociale medier til
interaktion, samarbejde og videndeling
“2.0” = udvidede ‘affordances’ for brugerskabte spor + social navigation
dvs. flere brugspotentialer for at sætte egne spor og følge andres spor
personal traces and social navigation in tag networks
taggers(creators)
tags(concepts)
taggees(instances)
nnn
nnn nnn nnn nnn
nnn
nnn nnn
nnn nnn
© Björneborn
’multi-reachability’ = many different paths from one node to another= ’small-world’ distances serendipity
’participation inequality’
”90–9–1” regel (Nielsen 2006) 90% ’lurkers’ (’osere’) 9% sporadiske bidragydere 1% hyperaktive bidragydere
blogs = 95–5–0,1 wikipedia = 99,8–0,2–0,003
”legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger 1990) ok at være ’lurker’ ’lurkers’ observer, imiterer, afprøver, lærer = socialiseres ind i praksisfællesskab
(jf. Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2004) ’learning by participating’
www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
Bus
ine
ss W
eek
11
.6.0
7 w
ww
.bus
ines
swee
k.co
m/m
agaz
ine/
cont
ent/0
7_24
/b40
3840
5.ht
m
http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/04/forresters_new_.html
deltagelses-’stien’
“awareness of others and their actions make us feel that the space is alive and might make it more inviting” ”social presence” + ”populated space”
(Dieberger et al. 2000)
“awareness of others and their actions make us feel that the space is alive and might make it more inviting” ”social presence” + ”populated space”
(Dieberger et al. 2000)
’social affordances’
Wellman et al. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism.
(Smith 2007)(Adamic 2003)
Identity - uniquely identifying people in the system
Presence - knowing who is online, available or otherwise nearby
Relationships - describing how two users in the system are related
Conversations - talking to other people through the system
Groups - forming communities of interest
Reputation - knowing the status of other people in the system
- who can be trusted?
Sharing - sharing things that are meaningful to participants
‘Social Software Building Blocks’ (Smith 2007)
http://nform.ca/publications/social-software-building-block
jf. ‘sociability’ (Preece 2001)jf. ‘sociability’ (Preece 2001)
’Homo Ludens’/ ’Creative Man’
Huizinga (1938). ‘Homo Ludens’ Institut for Fremtidsforskning (2004). ‘Creative Man’
jf. ‘funability’ / ‘funology’ fx Blythe et al. (2003)
jf. web 2.0 fx Spalding, Tim (2006). Is your OPAC fun? (a manifesto of sorts). http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2006/12/is-your-opac-fun-manifesto-of-sorts.php
- spørgsmål?- kommentarer?