I've been thinking a lot about the notion of sharing (on the Internet), how it can both serve an individual's self interest and contribute to a larger social knowledge base. Tagging bookmarks on del.icio.us, for example, is one way we serve our own interest (cataloging our links) and contribute to a collective interest (the application provides links to others who have found and tagged the same item).
LurkingIn this regard, I have developed a fascination with the literal idea of lurking. On the outside, it carries a kind of creepy connotation, lascivious even. Another way to think about this type of non-participatory viewing might include spying or espying: we act as watchers, we take notes, we peek around the corner catching a glimpse of our target stepping into a cab. It almost sounds melodramatic. As I recall (trans. no authority), the term lurking as it relates to cyberspace dates back to a usage associated with MUDs and MOOs where people entered a room and then said nothing while others chatted all around them.
Social networking as (e)spyware?
Yet, when you begin to really look closely, lurking and espying represent a large amount of what happens on the Web. I am not suggesting any malicious intent is necessarily involved by those who prefer to look rather than participate. Social networking sites encourage us to search and browse, to share and compare. That's what friends do, right? RSS and aggregators, for example, automate our ability to eavesdrop on conversations around the globe. But on the Web, eavesdropping is necessarily encouraged. And what we're seeing on the Web is not secret, per se. Eavesdropping on the Web is a way to learn things you might not learn if you were directly looking for a particular answer. On the Web, voyeurism is implicit and might not necessarily symbolize a deviant act. [Of course, it can be quite the deviant act when people use social networking sites for purposes other than interacting truthfully.]
Friends
Friends share. So people who don't share are not your friends, right? So what do we call people who we share with who are not our friends? Residue? By standers? Neutrons? What greater affect does not sharing or participating create? Global warming? War? Famine? A surplus of antique lamps no one will buy on eBay?
AgoraIdeally, the various social and participatory applications available to us can serve us as an agora, not necessarily a marketplace, in a capitalist sense, but more like the Greek verb ageiro which means to gather. The Web affords a means of convergence of commercial and civic life that can be more than about buying and selling merchandise--it can also serve as a place where people can freely examine a wide range of ideas and ideals. Which we are doing now.
Reflection as Action
But the next step requires us to be reflective. The Internet and Web have afforded us an opportunity to re-examine and re-define our morals, our communities, our nations, and the globe. But will these conversations be limited to only a few? What mechanisms are in place to encourage and support a wide range of thought and activity? Perhaps now that we have the ability to connect one-to-one-one-to-many, we should begin thinking about how to harness this collective social power and turn it into meaningful social action, promote open and meaningful dialogue, and serve as a platform for experimentation built on a wide range of perspectives. This is already happening in many ways and will, no doubt, continue to grow and become part of the water. But it should never be taken for granted. If the last U.S. presidential regime has taught us anything, it's that freedom is just another word for everything to lose.
Is the tent too big? Is there such a thing as too many voices in a democracy? I think we need to explore these ideas more and continue to experiment on smaller scales to see how social software can serve as both a personal learning environment (PLE) and support positive social action.
As always, your thoughts and corrections are encouraged.
Keywords: agora, computing, educational technology, learning, participation, participatory media, PLE, social action, social networking, social software, spyware, tagging, teaching






Comments
I think we're just warming up with the whole lurking thing.
1) Lurking is great for education. I teach students to lurk behind strangers using delicious. Increases relevency, increases freshness of info. http://blog.swiftkickonline.com/2008/03/getting-an-expe.html
2) Lurking is how people warm up to action. Wikis have shown pretty consistent patterns with this:
http://www.wikipatterns.com/display/wikipatterns/90-9-1+Theory
I love amazon's recommendation system, which is pretty much aggregate lurking. Society is becoming more transparent and lurkable / searchable all the time. There are certainly challenges with this direction (I think the government, as you mention, is a big one) but many many positives.
As far as too many voices in a democracy . . . I think clustering solves most of this. There have always been neural networks that coalesce influence (PACs. parties, etc.) I think having greater resolution and flexibility with these networks will be a good thing in the end.
Christopher, you ask the questions..."But will these conversations be limited to only a few? What mechanisms are in place to encourage and support a wide range of thought and activity?"
I feel that these are good questions and they need to be asked. I have sensed of late that segments of the "edublogosphere" are dominated by a small coterie of seasoned bloggers who are followed by a dedicated core of disciples that hang off their every word. I think this is stifling original thought and creating a sameness in some edublogging arenas. The conversations are limited to a few yet cloned by many.
i have observed a number of new edubloggers join the networks of late and they are like mirror images of the more seasoned or 'vocal' edubloggers. It is a pity. I feel that the twitter networks play a role in the establishment of this sameness.
What sort of mechanisms can we set up to encourage creativity and diversity among edubloggers? I agree that the world of education bloggers should be more like an agora with a highly varied range of discussions, debates, marketing of ideas and the 'playing of games'. At the moment I fear that the edublogosphere is evolving into a collection of shopping malls populated with overly dominant voices that are differentatiated only in the way that they are branded. We need more voices Christopher.
Looking at your BlogRoll I also think it is time I explored a few new voices and joined a few new networks.
Cheers, John Larkin
http://blog.larkin.net.au/