Though I don't do it justice in this space, a lot of our time at ETS has been spent trying to stimulate a sense of community between like minded individuals around learning and the social web. In the end, the idea is very simple - the group is greater than the sum of its parts. There are a ton of forward thinking individuals, both within and outside of our own University who are trying to answer the same questions and overcome the same challenges as we are. So by working together, by thinking together, by communicating with each other, we can pave the way for a brighter educational future in ways that alone, we never could.
We have quite a few initiatives aimed at building the community, the newest of which is the Learning Design Summer Camp. As a side, you might find it odd that I would link a planning document to the world. Its all part of planning on the open, another nice community tactic, but I'll save that discussion for another day.
During a organizational discussion for said Summer Camp yesterday afternoon, a very interesting issue was raised, which at its core, asked a simple question: "where is my invitation"? To clarify, a lot of the people that we are trying to engage are interested and excited about the idea of participating in the things we are discussing at ETS, but are gunshy about speaking up without an invitation to be a part of the conversation. The missing ingredient that may or may not be obvious, is that the majority of "the conversation" is facilitated by social media - blogs, Microblogs, social bookmarking, photo and video sharing, social networking sites etc, NOT though face to face interaction.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about what drives people to participate in the web 2.0 world. But no where in my thought process did it ever occur to me that people might not want to participate because they had not been invited. Even now, such a notion is so wildly foreign that I have a difficult time getting my head around it.
Maybe its because I'm a member of that GenY band of thugs, known for our notorious brashness and disregard for authority (LOL!). Maybe its because I'm fortunate enough to work in a place where contributing has become so ingrained in the culture (thanks to the diligent efforts of more than few people) that I've taken it for granted. Or maybe its because at some point, I just stopped caring whether other people wanted me to share my ideas or not (my blog is waving to you). But its clear from yesterday's meeting that there is a significant number of people who do not look at the social web the way that I do.
The way participation in the web 2.0 world works is very difficult to explain to anyone who has never taken part in it. But with the democratization of information comes a very simple rule that henceforth shall be known (at least in my head) as Stub's First Law of the Social Web: No Invitation Required.
You don't need an invitation to comment on blog posts. If the author didnt want comments, they wouldnt allow them. You don't need an invitation to edit a wiki - wikis exist to be edited. You don't need an invitation to friend me on Facebook, or post a note to my wall. The same goes for Twitter, Delicious, Flick'r, YouTube or whatever tomorrow brings - if I didnt want to be found, if I didnt want to engage you, if I didnt care what you thought, I wouldnt be using those tools in the first place. And you most certainly do not need an invitation to start your own conversation.
When I brought this up at our planning session yesterday, Stevie Rocco, made an excellent observation. Paraphrased, "If someone has a party, you wouldnt show up without being invited. But the same rules do not apply to the social web". Truer words have not been spoken. And perhaps it is this association with the Face to Face world that drives such a notion of being invited. Well its time to throw that notion out.
So if you are reading this and you've ever hesitated to participate in the web 2.0 world - to comment, to friend someone, to offer up your $0.02 or jump into a conversation, take heed: don't wait for an invitation. Not only is an invitation not required, but frankly it may never come. Even with the best analytics, the internet is closer to a one way mirror than a transparent piece of glass. Just because you are interested in a web 2.0 idea, podcast, or post, doesnt mean that the creators know it. The web is too big for invitations. And if you are worried about sounding stupid, worried you don't have anything important to contribute, or are not willing to take the initiative, to speak your mind and to join in the conversation, you will never be recognized. Your voice will never be heard. You lose a chance to participate. The world loses your contribution. No one wins.
I'll leave you with some John Mayer lyrics that seem quite appropriate.
We have quite a few initiatives aimed at building the community, the newest of which is the Learning Design Summer Camp. As a side, you might find it odd that I would link a planning document to the world. Its all part of planning on the open, another nice community tactic, but I'll save that discussion for another day.
During a organizational discussion for said Summer Camp yesterday afternoon, a very interesting issue was raised, which at its core, asked a simple question: "where is my invitation"? To clarify, a lot of the people that we are trying to engage are interested and excited about the idea of participating in the things we are discussing at ETS, but are gunshy about speaking up without an invitation to be a part of the conversation. The missing ingredient that may or may not be obvious, is that the majority of "the conversation" is facilitated by social media - blogs, Microblogs, social bookmarking, photo and video sharing, social networking sites etc, NOT though face to face interaction. I've spent a lot of time thinking about what drives people to participate in the web 2.0 world. But no where in my thought process did it ever occur to me that people might not want to participate because they had not been invited. Even now, such a notion is so wildly foreign that I have a difficult time getting my head around it.
Maybe its because I'm a member of that GenY band of thugs, known for our notorious brashness and disregard for authority (LOL!). Maybe its because I'm fortunate enough to work in a place where contributing has become so ingrained in the culture (thanks to the diligent efforts of more than few people) that I've taken it for granted. Or maybe its because at some point, I just stopped caring whether other people wanted me to share my ideas or not (my blog is waving to you). But its clear from yesterday's meeting that there is a significant number of people who do not look at the social web the way that I do.
The way participation in the web 2.0 world works is very difficult to explain to anyone who has never taken part in it. But with the democratization of information comes a very simple rule that henceforth shall be known (at least in my head) as Stub's First Law of the Social Web: No Invitation Required.
You don't need an invitation to comment on blog posts. If the author didnt want comments, they wouldnt allow them. You don't need an invitation to edit a wiki - wikis exist to be edited. You don't need an invitation to friend me on Facebook, or post a note to my wall. The same goes for Twitter, Delicious, Flick'r, YouTube or whatever tomorrow brings - if I didnt want to be found, if I didnt want to engage you, if I didnt care what you thought, I wouldnt be using those tools in the first place. And you most certainly do not need an invitation to start your own conversation. When I brought this up at our planning session yesterday, Stevie Rocco, made an excellent observation. Paraphrased, "If someone has a party, you wouldnt show up without being invited. But the same rules do not apply to the social web". Truer words have not been spoken. And perhaps it is this association with the Face to Face world that drives such a notion of being invited. Well its time to throw that notion out.
So if you are reading this and you've ever hesitated to participate in the web 2.0 world - to comment, to friend someone, to offer up your $0.02 or jump into a conversation, take heed: don't wait for an invitation. Not only is an invitation not required, but frankly it may never come. Even with the best analytics, the internet is closer to a one way mirror than a transparent piece of glass. Just because you are interested in a web 2.0 idea, podcast, or post, doesnt mean that the creators know it. The web is too big for invitations. And if you are worried about sounding stupid, worried you don't have anything important to contribute, or are not willing to take the initiative, to speak your mind and to join in the conversation, you will never be recognized. Your voice will never be heard. You lose a chance to participate. The world loses your contribution. No one wins.
I'll leave you with some John Mayer lyrics that seem quite appropriate.
Have no fear for givin' in.
Have no fear for giving over.
You better know that in the end
It's better to say too much, than never to say what you need to say again.
Even if your hands are shaking,
And your faith is broken.
Even as the eyes are closin',
Do it with a heart wide open.
Say what you need to say
EDIT: We've got some great comments and thoughts here, but there is also a parallel conversation going on over on Cole's blog.
Invitation background taken from www.itsmyinternet.com, lolcat from icanhascheezburger.com/
Have no fear for giving over.
You better know that in the end
It's better to say too much, than never to say what you need to say again.
Even if your hands are shaking,
And your faith is broken.
Even as the eyes are closin',
Do it with a heart wide open.
Say what you need to say
EDIT: We've got some great comments and thoughts here, but there is also a parallel conversation going on over on Cole's blog.
Invitation background taken from www.itsmyinternet.com, lolcat from icanhascheezburger.com/
I'll drink to that Cole. And as Jamie said over on your blog, this is an incredibly exciting and interesting thing to be a part of. If there is any frustration, its frustration of love. You're right that we've come a long way, but we're just getting warmed up. =)
I think at the end of the day, the fact that we are exploring these thoughts in an open space is huge progress. Think about the fact that Stubbs wrote this post on a Saturday and so many people showed up to not only read but to contribute! That is crazy. A couple of years ago I would have never thought I'd see something like that at PSU. Times are changing and community is happening. This is standard stuff -- early adoption doesn't just focus on technology ... for me the killer application of Web 2.0 is participation. To me that has nothing to do with Twitter, Spore, wikis, and the like -- it has to do with finding the confidence to step into a room full of people and saying, "Hi, my name is ..."
More people will show up and the community will grow. No need for us to be frustrated by the lack of participation when we've moved mountains in the last couple of years.
Ah, now we're cooking with fire! I love it!
@ Jamie -
A little trip down memory lane. Once upon a time, I said blogs were the stupidest thing around. I thought Twitter was a waste of bandwidth. I thought Xbox Achievements were a joke, that social bookmarking was pointless, that Facebook was a fad, that text messaging was for teeny boppers and that Virtual Worlds were for losers. I may be a GenY-er, but that doesn’t mean I was born to “get it”. If you took all of that on the surface, I probably look like a close minded, judgmental hack. Or more appropriately, I was “that guy”. I was the guy who was waiting for the invitation to the party, waiting for someone to explain it all to me. I was the guy who was too shy to ask questions. Who didn’t understand the terms and couldnt see the difference between a blog and a wiki (yes really). I didn’t see the big picture, didn’t want to speak at the risk of looking stupid and didn’t think I deserved a seat at the table of conversation. Whats the moral of the story? #1 I was that guy. #2 Everyone who knows anything started out clueless (not that I know anything) =)
To be fair, you and I are very lucky Jamie. We work in an environment, and with people who encourage exploration and participation. But regardless of where we come from, we all have to make a choice at some point - play the game or not.
I won’t argue that more can be done to lower people’s inhibitions about participating. But there will always be questions. There will always be things that someone says that don’t make sense to us, acronyms we don’t know, or concepts we can’t wrap our heads around. And there is no way that every question can be anticipated enough to explain it beforehand. But that’s the beauty of the conversation – you can always ask what you don’t know, as Stevie did. “Only a fool knows everything. A wise man knows how little he knows.”
At the end of the day, no matter how nicely, how effectively, how comfortingly you lead the horse to water, there are only a very finite number of horses you can take. And as we all know, once we get there, there is nothing that you, or I, or anyone else can do to make them drink if they aren’t willing to do it themselves.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a stupid question. That’s fills my proverb quota for the day =)
I wonder if perhaps instead of trying to reach out to individuals, we would be better off creating an informal set of "rules of the game", so that anyone, regardless of their comfort level, would understand how things are done Web 2.0 style? Maybe? Maybe not? Or maybe its a combination of guidelines (you mentioned some good ones) and personal interaction. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I most certainly plan on thinking about them.
Awesome perspective Jamie.
I am going to “simulcomment” here and post this on both Chris and Cole’s blogs. First off, I agree, Cole, Mr. Stubb’s blog is outstanding.
And secondly, Shannon Ritter touches on a few things that are 100 percent spot on, so much that I want to reach out and hug her comments, if that is at all possible.
I think we are so far advanced that the people in ETS and those I work with are the equivalent of an auto club in 1902, or a usenet group in 1993. We are way, way ahead of people in both technology and culture change that I think we often forget this point.
I don’t care how cool the technology is, there are several points that I think need to address to grow the community that go beyond Web 2.0 tools:
- Stubbs, I hear what you are saying about Gen Y, I am Gen X but find myself appreciating many of the views of the Gen Y crowd. The thing is, the best way to fail when you are trying to market something (and what is building a community but marketing at its core) is to focus too much on what you think. You must take into account others’ perspectives, and right now, you and I are well ahead of the crowd. We are dealing with not just advanced technology, but a vastly different way of thinking. Shannon touches on this. Not everyone is a fully connected gaming guy. Your posts on Spore were outstanding, but to many people, what you were saying is equivalent to jumping into a time machine and telling Ben Franklin about Amazon.com. Which leads me to….
- People are going to be reluctant to talk about what they know little about. No one likes to look stupid. We do a nice job of offering a friendly face, but we also, frankly, come off as so smart we are a bit intimidating. Not everyone posts Tweets from an iPhone while debating Web 2.0 ethics in Second Life. Adding to the frankness, I sort of felt the Web 2.0 Inner Circle at PSU was clique-ish at first. And no, I am not the only one who believes/believed this. I later found this not to be the case; we do a good job of being inclusive once you get people to come to us and participate. One the good side of things, again, we present a friendly, inclusive face. But the stuff we are dealing with is so bleeding edge that OF COURSE people are going to be reluctant to participate. It’s because people aren’t sure what the hell we are talking about.
- One small thing we can do is lose some of the jargon. Explain a bit more. And for God’s sake - AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHAT SOME OF THESE ACRONYMS STAND FOR. When I first started at Penn State, I nearly drowned in a torrent of acronyms. I hear “You need to talk to AIS and CSS about that and whatever you do, don’t mention CAC, that no longer exists” and I am all WTF and all I can do is LOL. I recommend in any blog posts, we either lose the acronyms or at least offer a first reference or even a hyperlink. People at least need to know what organizations we are referring to in our communications.
And, some of the terms need to be explained. I had to research what exactly was meant by backchanneling before a previous BS breakfast. I breathed a sigh of relief when the very smart and in touch Stevie Rocco had to ask what it was during the breakfast. I didn’t want to ask anyone because I didn’t want to feel like an idiot, and trust me, this isn’t the first time this has happened to me (and others I work with).
C’mon, folks, if an Educational Technology Services employee and someone experienced with learning technologies like Stevie has to wonder, can we assume people outside our community know? This is why I thought a good idea might be a glossary of terms to reference folks to.
Anyway, food for thought. I hope I didn’t anger too many people, but I just read both of these posts and had to say what I said.
Hey Chris. Excellent points about a person being able to show their intent by controlling how open or closed their tweets, comments, edits, etc... are. We can post to a blog or on a tweet saying that no invitation is required, but for those who are still native in the world of face-to-face meetings and listservs, they may need to be given a blank-check invitation through the channels that they are currently using. During the meeting, Jackie R. said that she needed to test the waters by adding her name to the volunteer list and seeing whether someone responded to her -- and when we did, she jumped in and started participating.
I also loved your point "wikis exist to be edited". So true. If they weren't open to editing, they would be static pages.
Oh, and I think I'm going to change that "Audience" section of the summer camp page. We're going to make it as open as we can afford to. If we end up with 100 designers, librarians, and technologists spending 2 days together hashing out issue, I would consider that a huge success.
@Cole - a great question. One that I've been trying to answer since this all came up yesterday. I think at least some of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of those awaiting the invitations. But you're right - there must be something else we can do to lower those invisible barriers to entry.
@Nikki - you are more than welcome to make yourself at home here. Thats what the space is here for, after all =)
I think I might have been a bit unclear in my post, in so much as the idea of "being invited" was something that extends far beyond one specific Learning Design Summer Camp. For example, one person said "I was so interested in engaging you all on Twitter, but I didnt feel comfortable doing so because I was never invited".
As you mentioned, the Learning Design Camp does have a specific audience, largely brought about by the fact that it is a replacement for the yearly Penn State all ID meetings. But if the professional goals of your unit, or some other unit that may not have been specifically referenced coincide, why feel any hesitation at contributing? Why not ask the same questions you asked me in the Wiki's discussion area? Maybe you find that the event is not something you would take a lot from. Or maybe you contribute a unique perspective that the conversation had been lacking.
The best part is, there is only one way to find out =)
Great post Stubbs! I took upon myself to share thoughts over at my blog after I read this. I am wondering how we can be more open and overt with our (lack of) invitations ... what I mean is what do we do to help more people understand that participation is really, really welcomed? A topic for more discussion I believe.
Here I am making myself perfectly at home commenting on your space...
In the face-to-face world, even if we saw an open invitation flyer for an event to a niche group, we might be reluctant to attend and participate without first lurking on the periphery to obtain more information:
Specifically with the Learning Design Summer Camp, some of those asking for an invitation may have been doing so because they know the answers to the first and last questions, but are feeling out that middle one.
What about people who have no personal connections to the summer camp? How will #1-3 be addressed from their perspective? I like that the Audience section is very well-defined for the event, but I could also see it becoming a double-edged sword. Some people may assume that because they are not listed in the Audience, they may not be part of the group, or welcome to add to the Audience section.
Imagine the questions/reservations of someone just on the outside of the community who doesn't have the pre-existing relationship to feel comfortable asking for "an invitation":