Why do some social-centered (or in old lingo web 2.0) services soar and others sink? And more to the point when we introduce wikis, SharePoint, IM, blogs and other technologies into the workplace or campus, how can we insure that they succeed. In this Museum 2.0 post Nina references an article by Jyri Engestrom and argues that successful social networks are built around, and defined by, a common object. She refers to LinkedIn, and their recent focus on jobs as the common object. And it is true, LinkedIn has more of a business feel to it, and I am more comfortable connecting with work-related people through that forum.
Implementing a classroom blog or a work group wiki, just because those are the cool new technologies, probably won’t go very far or last very long with users. When these technologies take on an object focus, on-line reports or the department on-line contact list, there is a better chance that users will integrate them into their other work.
Museum 2.0: Exhibits and Artifacts as Social Objects
# You should be able to define the social object your service is built around
# Define your verbs that your users perform on the objects.
# How can people share the objects?
# Turn invitations into gifts.
# Charge the publishers, not the spectators.
Basically I’m defending an alternative approach to social networks here, which I call ‘object centered sociality’
ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
Randall Rode's online home for thoughts, notes, and experiments with a wide range of technology topics. Visit the about page for info on my recent projects and professional background. I welcome your comments!
Past listings from 2004 to the present
Need a home (or better home) for your website? I highly recommend HostRocket -- they are the best!
