Watch the following video about institutions vs. collaboration by Clay Shirky, and answer the question with your teammate.
If you remember, we originally asked you to build your community around a more collaborative model.
How is your community supporting the collaborative model as opposed to the institutional? What actual features will your system offer that prompt the collaborative model? For example, a free community chat room rids a company of providing an actual conference room. Do you feel that by providing an institution, it makes the user feel as if they're serving someone else's goal, rather than the community having its own goal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Our community is supporting the collaborative model by bringing people together to self-initiate services that a company could have offered. Some of the features that our community provides that encourages a more collaborative model versus an institutional model are: the ability to locate and discuss and veto product from a large material source, versus a company offering us product directly. The ability to meet up with others in the community space or out in public versus a conference room. User input and data collection that tailors a users interests to target product. I think it depends on how "hidden" the institution is and how much control and individual has decides whether they are serving their own goal or the institutional goal. A good example of this, are companies who allow open source development for example creating apps for the iPhone where a user can directly make an application that fits their needs and also distribute it on the Apple provided space for other users to benefit from.
Our community is supporting the collaborative model as opposed to the institutional in the manner that other people can provide others with feedback and instructional information as well as progressive stat informational upload that one may not be able to gather within the institution. Thus making our collaborative model a more personalized environment where the outcome is always reshaped.
Features that our system will offer is the ability to provide personal bowler stats and the capability to bowl with others not physically present thus it will rid the limitation of only bowling with people in your area and will cut cost theoretically for tournament traveling.
We find that by providing a community based collaborative model allows users to feel like they are following similar goals/interests of the institution. Thus this gives the user the presence of experiencing their own personal goals without having to serve that of someone else.
In our community we are supporting the collaborative and then the collaborative supports the institution. without this process the institution could not and would not exist. our community supports the collaborative model with their contribution to the database of ratings and comments. much like what was said in the video, our institution has a model which consists of users adding any number of tracks or songs to just one number but by using the "tagging" feature those will then be grouped in a searchable way.
the music hosting, the radio, the colaborative forums and the mashups that will be created.
we feel like the institution is a tool that can be used for sharing and creating an impact on the community therefor the users are clear that they are serving each other. the whole reason for this institution is for the people, the institution has no goal other than to serve the communities goals both individually and as a whole.
The greatest factor of community support seen in our model is the subjective element of unique content produced by each individual user. This solution alone allocates the position of the institution to establishing connections between users and presentation of content. This successfully executes a solution to the problem of our user, giving them a subjective outlet for dream analysis versus generic, implied symbolism. In giving the user the administrative rights to publish and reflect upon others' entries, we find that dreamers themselves begin to establish further insight while contributing to the strength of the overall structure. When users contribute towards a collective institution, we find that they have the greater capacity to shape the content. Through increasing the imbalance of the model, users are inspired to contribute subjectively and provide solutions to their own problems.
Our application subverts the institution of ecology, department of interior management (park/wildlife management), cartography, ect., achieving the same goals through the work of a community of diverse individuals whose motivations and qualifications are not necessarily that of the institution.
The actions of this fringe community are a valuable overlooked resource for the institution. The institution provides an additional outlet for the actions of the individuals, elevating the activity from mere pastime to the pursuit of a greater goal.
If only the two could get together.
Our Application—connects these two
+The institution is no longer burdened with the costs associated with fieldwork, as they have a wealth of perpetual observation being conducted by the community.
+ Parks no longer make a distinction between those who survey, secure, and preserve wildlife, and those who enjoy it, as the work of the later facilitates the goals of the former.
+ Ecology involves everyone. Our application removes the academia, allowing for greater accessibility to those previously excluded from the institution, thus facilitating the creation of a more complete ecological picture.
+ This application provides the institution with the means to achieve their goals without directly imposing them on the participants.
Visual clarification
In our case the institution would be the limitations of film making and what you have at your disposal. With this community everyone feeds off of each other in a good way, sharing what they have with people who don't. Our big goal would be a national collaboration using the community as a median. With what would be provided or offered by the collective this could become a reality or possibility of a reality. Using the specified equipment or "objects" we came up with, this could make for an easier task on the part of the creators. Automating almost everything in the sharing process, would make things more readily available for users. The goal of the "objects" was to make almost every aspect of the film making process mobile, simplifying the studio into 3 compact devices. In most cases the fact of there being any institution could give off the impression that they would be working towards someone else's vision, rather than working for a goal of the entire community. However since in our collaborative goal everyone is on a level playing field in the eyes of the community, no one member would be put above the rest.
our community collaborates by each individuals contribution to the database of statistics. the statistics and rankings create a platform for socialization through competition and the desire to learn and become a better player. this in turn serves the community as a whole by furthering the sport itself by raising the bar for sill level among players.
another collaborative aspect is the option to practice with eachother. individuals benefit from this as well as the whole group becuase the better each player gets through practice, the fiercer the competition and the more enticing the sport becomes.
Because our community highly depends on people contributing content to the system, it supports the collaborative model. Members not only upload the recipes but they can experience the recipes of other members in the community. You have this balance of members giving and taking. Without the member's input in the community, there would be no recipe database and the community cannot exist. Individuals can control their experience in the community by customizing how they view and search recipes.
Everyone who belongs in the community has invested in the device that houses the recipe collection. Because of their initial interest, they'll want to build up their database because it benefits them. If there isn't a large database of information being shared, then, the taking experience won't be as rich and valuable. Therefore, there needs to be an equal balance of taking and sharing for the community to thrive.
The content is user provided. We have allowed the SmittyTalk's in the guerrilla gardening community to provide as much or as little insight as they please. In order for a guerrilla garden to successfully go from brainstorming to planting and to maintaining a collaborative effort is needed on the online community for direct communication and interaction so that things get done.
Yes, because someone else is running the show in the case of an institution. The same goals might get completed, but the way in which the goals completed come from only a few sources. In the collaborative everyone gets a say in every step of the process.
By encouraging interaction between people within the coffee shop we are allowing the user to have extensive interaction and conversation at their table with someone using the same system. Only now it will be made possible with someone in another coffee shop. This is made possible through a network of similar users and interactive services at the their fingertips. The tool for this service is groundbreaking in that we have taken the coffee table and turned it into the center of interactivity. By changing the table into a screen, people no longer meet around it, but within it, chatting and playing games.
An institution is absolutely necessary in order to provide standards for the community. However, a community will instigate a plan for meeting their own goals as opposed to relying on the already existing institution. In order for progress to occur, the institution must reform towards meeting the goals of the community. Thus evolution will prevail.
Post a Comment