Allegiance as an online community indicator

On Christmas eve, 2009, Josie Fraser (now at http://www.josiefraser.com/) Did a Twitter poll of 100 of her followers to see if, by following her, they had connected to her enough to have some sort of allegiance. I found this humorous AND fascinating, but clearly never got around to blogging about it. I kept the draft because it fit with the tag that I still love, Community Indicators. Community indicators are things that provide evidence of our connection and continuity through community interaction and engagement. What comes of these connections? Just compost, or growth?

Image of two mushrooms amongst compost with an additional mushroom piece fallen over.
The mushrooms and the compost

SocialTech: Twitter allegiance
I invited 100 of my 1,276 current Twitter followers to fill in a quick survey cunningly designed to provide a fairly wonky measure of community allegiance.

Josie’s folks clearly liked her then, back in the good old, kinder, smaller Twitter days. I wonder what would happen if you repeated your poll, Josie? (I’ll have to Tweet a link out with this!)

I often fondly think of the 7-10 people who still regularly read my blog. I would do many of the things Josie asked for you!!!

Happy Holidays

From the Drafts: Choosing the path of humility with Lauren Vargas

Child's artwork, blue and white abstract figure pulling a blue and white abstract banner across a field of black and gray watercolors.
art by my youngest grandperson

Communicators Anonymous: Choosing the path of humility

Ah, this dive into the drafts of late 2008 brings a spark of kismet because this year I had the wonderful pleasure of reconnecting with Dr. Lauren Vargas. (Old site, new site) when she and Bill Johnston hosted me for a podcast: How the Pandemic Forced Online Collaboration to Mature with Nancy White. I found Lauren a kindred spirit, and here I unearth a blog post about humility that still resonates. Thanks, Lauren!

(And the rest of y’all, go READ it!)

Community is not a one shot deal

Trees, standing togetherI found another almost intact unpublished post from 2008. It still resonates for me. For you?

Will Richardson sent out a tweet today noting the admissions page of the College of the Atlantic. This line caught my eye. (Alas, dead link… this is what happens when you resurrect a 13 year old blog draft. I can’t find the text on their site  now..)

Community isn’t a one-shot deal; it’s at the heart of daily life here.

Amen! Community is fabric, not container. It is, to use a word I love, quotidian. Peter Block (see this blog post) talks about successful communities being “slow, small and underfunded.” So then what does this mean in terms of networks? Are they a one shot deal? Fast? Certainly large is a property of many of the successful networks I’m a part of. (I’ll leave the funding issue alone today!)

I keep thinking every day about what makes community different from network.  Just when I think I have it figured out, my logic falls apart, even when I try to squirrel out of it and say “this is all a continuum and of course, context matters.” Argggg.

This weekend I was introduced to Blip.fm – a network of people sharing links to music they love, Twitter style. (Update – it is now more of a way to be an internet based DJ, so it evolved a bit.) I have also been playing Amy Jo Kim and Shufflebrain’sPhotograb” puzzles in Facebook. (I don’t think these exist anymore either!)  There is something about both of these networks that strike a “community chord” in me. Part of it is that both are well designed with game dynamics in mind, something Amy Jo has written about. Awards, “props” and various forms that reify participation and support reciprocity. I liken it to addiction to chocolate. 🙂 There is something you want more of.  That is the gaming property that draws us back.  But that addiction is not the “community-like” property of either of these sites that I’m sensing.

Is there a community property to Blip.fm and Photograb? I think so. But let me step back a bit. And, true to form, ramble. Yes, I’m thinking out loud, so don’t sink the following in concrete. Make it better by commenting!

My personal experience and definition of community is a group of people who care about something in common, and who interact with and have some sort of relationship with each other over time. Community has some boundary, however fuzzy and ineffable. It has interactions that are in some degree or other shared amongst all or most of the members. Things overlap. The boundary is a core part of the identity of a community and members are willing to have some degree of collective, not just individual, identity.

Networks are, by contrasts, collections of relationships (represented by nodes) that are not equal nor reciprocal over the network and where interests are overlapping, not necessarily congruent. Individual identity has primacy over network identity (if, in fact, any network identity is explicitly expressed.) Network relationships are defined by the nodes, not the boundaries of the network –if there are even boundaries. For example, membership in Blip.fm is a boundary, but not one that an individual can really fathom in terms of relationships because, come on, we don’t have “relationships” with thousands of people. Which begs the definition of relationship, eh?

In my experience, we form relationships in communities based on the person first, then their role and participation in the community. In networks we often form connections based on the content another person adds to the network. A puzzle on Photograb. A great tune on Blip.fm. We then nurture that connection and, if we like what we see, we may choose to activate that connection into a relationship. So trust, if I may use that word, is based on artifacts not personal relationships, at least at the start.

Given enough overlapping relationship, a community may form within that network. That’s why I think networks are so powerful as community incubators. This is a far more sustainable and scalable community formation path than someone saying “we need a community on X topic and I’m going to build it.”

Building implies a space. Community, remember, is fabric. Or ecosystem. It needs place, but it is not place itself. It needs time. It needs more than a container. But I’m getting off track, yet again. Sigh.

So are networks one shot deals? Often, yes. If we don’t get sufficient value out of a connection, we move on. If the content provided by the network doesn’t add value, we move on. The cost of sampling is not too high and the risk of disappointing or souring a relationship with another network member is low.

But networks are not by default one shot deals. If so, then what causes us to persevere in our networks? To stay connected? To create the possibility of community emergence?

Back to my thought about the possibility of “community-likeness” of Blip.fm and Photograb. Two things were in mind before I started playing with Photograb and Blip. That was value and relationship. Value is what we get out of something we participate in. You learn something. Have fun. Get work done. Relationship is the ongoing interaction we have with other individuals. Networks give us connections so we can create/find/nurture sets of connections that have short or long term value.

But it dawned on me today that, for me, a third reason cropped up today. Beauty. Or maybe pleasure is the word. In the case of Blip.FM and Photograb, both bring me non-text experiences that give me visual and aural pleasure. I’m smiling and grooving now to the music on Blip.fm and am truly appreciative of the individuals who took the time to share what they love and fill my little office with music. I’m madly giving them “electronic props” on the system to express my appreciation. (Nice design, Blip.fm!)

I’m taken back to the same feeling when I share a communal meal or a walk in a beautiful place with members of my communities.

The shared experience of beauty. In both communities and networks.

I’m gobsmacked I had not noticed this before.

But then again, community is not a one shot deal. Networks don’t have to be either. Through perseverance, I keep learning something. Ah, now there is another property or value provided by both networks and communities — learning.

Knowledge, Management or Whatever

More detritus from blog drafts. Interesting. Below is a blog post written in 2008, apparently never published. It still holds true, even though I rarely do what folks might call KM work. I think maybe at this point in my life I might strive to be more of an artist. 🙂 Thus the image of one of my grandpeople doing fabric marbling!

A child with an orange face mask putting paint into a marbling table.

I was reviewing the text of an interview Lilia Efimova did with me as part of her PhD research and there was a line that keeps showing up lately — the association others make of me with knowledge management, and my inability to really embrace the term itself. I clearly embrace the fact that knowledge is an asset in organizations and should be part of the purview of management, but I have never really been able to believe we can manage knowledge. We can use it. We can nurture it. We can create conditions for its strategic application. But like the air around us, we can’t manage it. But we CAN pollute it. Bah, enough with metaphors.

I also stumble with the dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge, between wisdom and knowledge. They are a continuum. Yes, there are times when I can certainly “point” to something as explicit. This post is explicit. But my struggle to express myself is not. So is it tacit? Or is it part of the process of thinking, learning, knowing and expression? I can’t tease them apart. They are a whole, but different parts of the whole show up at any one time.

The differentiation between individual, group and network is another one of those places that don’t always slip into three neat boxes. Especially with the impact of technology and what it now means to “be together” with others.

NASA – Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration
“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein

Patrick Lambe on Against Bestness

Photograph of yellow warning signsthat says "water over roadway" and "dead end" surrounded by flood waters. Clouds and trees reflected on the water.


In 2008 Patrick Lambe wrote this fabulous blog post challenging our notion of, or perhaps obsession with, bestness. Green Chameleon » Against Bestness

First, I encourage you to read the whole post. It is still spot on resonant. Patrick highlights many of the missteps of trying to focus on all things best: best practices, simplistic taxonomies, etc. 

Why do we fall for bestness? For me, it is our own entrained thinking and simply not paying attention to the signals where a focus on best is, at best (haha) is a wrong turn.

Second, I’d love you to share the signals you notice when you (if you ever do) start focusing on bestness instead of the right thing to do right now. (Or some variation.)

In taking a step back from constant work, I’m reflecting on some of my choices with groups and clients and see moments where I have consciously or unconsciously not heard what others offer because I thought I had what was best.  Signals? Defensiveness. Interrupting others. Prioritizing the voices that agreed with me. 

My antidote? Stick with structures that prevent behavior that I succumbed to now and again. This is probably why I use Liberating Structures, or at the least, consider my process choices based on how much the bring all voices to the work.