Blogs and shared context
Nancy White asks me about a comment in my Importance of Shared Context article in her own Importance of shared context. Specifically, she asks for more about "what I mean" by this last sentence:
Interestingly, I get the sense that many of these groups are limited in scope to their topic of interest - that they rarely call upon their shared context to work together outside of that defined boundary.
I was referring to online communities like mailing lists and Usenet groups. I see those communities as being more "walled" by their topic-of-interest. This is an unscientific hypothesis on my part. I suspect that when the community is formed more naturally - by my seeking and finding those people - that there is more likelihood of finding shared interests that diverge from the original connections within the community. I think the point of mailing lists and other forums is to stay "on topic" and they have active gardeners who kindly request people take those off-topic conversations elsewhere. This is appropriate - I wouldn't expect my yoga class to devolve into a discussion of film - though it is nice when it happens afterwards (outside the confines of the specific community).
I was thinking out loud that blogs and other personal approaches let one reach into many communities while also retaining a semblance of identity outside all those communities. I can post something here that says something about me and my interests that I might not feel comfortable saying or asking in places that are geared around specific topics.
Does that help, Nancy? And when is Lilia getting back from her holiday to chime in on this one (ping)?
p.s. Nancy doesn't have trackback enabled, but I know she will see this. Just as she knew I would see her question.
Ha, I tried to get trackback working, failed and abandoned that task. Am I fickle, or what? Plus I did see this on my RSS aggregator, but that pesky distraction factor slowed me down. Somedays I wonder about this multitasking stuff!
Anyway, yes, that does help clarify. SO I've been wondering about these different experiences of something with a defined boundary (an email group, a web based discussion -- both password protected and publicaly readable)
First of all, on the drift factor and finding other things in common beyond the primary topic. My experience is that this varies wildly. Some groups are so intent about their focus that their practices resist drift and peripheral interactions. Others, mostly those with a more community or social bent, seem to find space for that drift, much of which becomes productive. I think of http://www.shareyourstory.org - which is ostensibly about families with babies in the NICU supporting each other -- and how this whole other layer of daily life, humor, music, food, layers on. Those layers really add to the depth and perhaps breadth of the member relationships. We go beyond the dimension of the lable of "parent of a NICU baby." The same can be said of "meta communities" that hold sub groups of different interests, and the very interesting stuff that happens between those areas - the cross pollinization.
Now, when I think about blog, it is more this "cross polinization pattern" that shows up for me. Even with very focused blogs, there is something "available" through links that expands to wider or diverse topics. It is even easier to cross pollinate, if one has the time and attention to do so. (Same isssue with more traditional online communities - they benefit from those pollinators with time and attention!)
I guess the bottom line is how available and useful are the borders and peripheries. How productive can they be without distracting too much or fracturing attention. Delicate and intersting balance!
I'm rambling. Jeeze, more tea, more tea! No, more chocolate!