Cooperation between the wiki (drupal) and networking (ning) sites

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rimu on August 18, 2008 at 19:34

You talk about the wiki site turning off all it's useful features (except the basic wiki) and passing everything over to Ning. That's going back to how things were before drupal. That's one site completely gutting itself so that another may prosper. That's not cooperation, that's subjugation. I'm surprised and saddened you think that might be desirable.

The main site is going to get better and better, not worse. That's a good thing.

There are some things on the main site that are (at present) poorly implemented, such as social networking. If that was turned off and this site's notes feature was turned off in turn, we would have cooperated. That would be both sites turning off their weakest features and both becoming stronger and more focussed. Neither will have lost anything.

A new design for the main site is imminent, and it may look similar to this one. It really needs a new design!

Yes it would be great if the main site had a more comprehensive 'about us' section. Anyone can create new pages on the site, so anyone is free to write one. So far no one has stepped up to the plate. Same goes for the contact us page. Feel free to lend a hand.

I'm surprised to hear that expenses have been incurred. It's free to create a ning, and there are no hosting costs. You don't want to get into a pissing contest about who's lost the most money.....


Going off on a tangent here now....
My comparison between the two sites is largely factual, and where I offer an opinion it's clearly stated as such. I can robustly back up any of the statements I made, and challenge anyone to disprove them. I have many other strong opinions about Ning, which I left out of that page but which I would happily defend also. Here is one:

"Online social networking is an attractive fantasy". Even more so amongst strangers who do not have an existing real world social network to start from. It would be great if we could easily form deep bonds with strangers, from the comfort of our sofa, but the fact is that does not happen. Especially once you get many people involved in a site, it becomes a circus. When the shit hits the fan, the people I gather around me will not be the ones I found on facebook, ning or any other web site!

The feeling of safety that you get when communicating with someone through a computer makes it easy to be brave and contact a stranger. At first this seems like a good thing. But that same safety and distance means it is also easy to be very rude, selfish, and manipulative. Sooner or later, the rude people drive away the warm fuzzy people. Attempts to crack down on the rude people invariably stunt the diversity of the community and make it boring.

I have seen that pattern repeat itself over and over, in my 10 years as part of online communities.

The public are generally fairly new to being part of an online community, so there is a lot of hype around social networking and even sane, well-read individuals can get seduced by it's promises. Soon most people will realise that there is just.... nothing there. Like sand running through their fingers. They will realise that they don't care about 95% of the people on their 'friend' list and the feelings are reciprocal.

Anyone who think betting the future of TT on a online social network needs to read up on the psychology of online communities.

Web sites work far better as support structures for already existing real-world social networks. Online communities put the cart before the horse.

----------------------
See now THAT is a divisive and dismissive opinion ;-)

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on August 18, 2008 at 19:55

Hi Rimu,
I won't argue with your opinions, everyone is entitled have them. Maybe we should rather be talking about the functions of the websites that are currently in existence. I'm not aware that there is a 'main site'. However, I acknowledge that the drupal wiki has it's strengths as well - and your suggestion of turning off social networking on the wiki site and not using the 'Notes' function on the ning is certainly a much more constructive approach to our discussion and certainly well worth talking about.

Nowadays, with evolving web technology, websites do work as support structures for already existing real-world networks, but at the same time they also help create new ones. It is this creative aspect that we need to make use of to strengthen the Transition Movement.

Permalink Reply by Deirdre Kent on August 18, 2008 at 20:22

Since this discussion has started I think it important to post the minutes of the conference call that was held last Friday where the goal was to record the various points of view. We all tried to invite anyone who had to date contributed to the discussion, though we may well have missed out someone. Let us know. It was an extremely constructive call and we all came off very hopeful that things might be sorted soon.

I think it is nearly time for another call as there is clearly a will not to confuse the public and to demarcate the roles of each site clearly. And where there is duplication or overlap, we must all be happy living with it. I doubt if talking about "the main site" would be very constructive so let's assume they are parallel sites with different functions. I am told that James spoke to the Waitakere City Council recently and showed the two sites on screen and this was very favourably received. He is now on the administration group for the networking site so will probably continue to champion both sites.

I will post the minutes of last Friday's conference call in the next discussion so that they are clearly labelled and read by all who want to. I don't see any reason for conflict. These things can be resolved. In the manner of expenses, we only need to cover our website expenses.

Permalink Reply by Rimu on August 18, 2008 at 21:51

In my head, I refer to it as 'the main site', because as someone who works on it frequently and hardly visits ning, that is what it is. I wasn't trying to 'frame the debate'. When talking to you guys, I'll refer to it as tt.org.nz or drupal or something

tt.org.nz is not a wiki any more, that is only one of it's functions. So calling it a wiki site is kind of belittling

Permalink Reply by Christoph Hensch on August 19, 2008 at 7:19

I looked at the 'About Us' page. From the point of view of a casual visitor I'm still a bit dissatisfied as to who might be behind the whole website. It says: There is no institution behind the loose, interconnected Transition Towns community. There is no legal structure, though a Trust service organisation is being considered. There is still no name, street address or PO Box, not even an email address such as 'info@transitiontowns.org.nz'. While the horizontal organisation of the movement makes it difficult for anyone to assume that identity of a national contact person, maybe some other text should be added, like:
If you like to get in touch with Transition Towns, please contact a local group in your area, Click here for a list of transition initiatives throughout New Zealand.

The list then could include links to both the Transition Towns static page(s) on the drupal and the Group pages on the ning.

There could be one paragraph that is specific to each of the websites, explaining what one does best here and there.

I think if we find an 'About Us' text that all agree with we could post it on both websites - that would further take care of showing that we are of the same movement.