Imitation and Invention

Friday, July 02, 2004

Orkut

The number of Brazilians has far surpassed any other demographic on Orkut (despite the recent bugginess and laggy-ness). It's fascinating. Here are the stats of the top 5 countries as of today (according to Orkut):

Brazil: 35.33%
United States: 27.05%
Iran: 5.41%
India: 4.02%
Estonia: 3.17%

Fascinating, isn't it? And quite surprising. There's also basically a Portuguese version of every community within Orkut. Of course the ones I follow most are fanfic/craft related, so there's Harry Potter Brasil, Harry Potter Senior (for Portuguese-speakers over 18), Harry Potter - Porto Alegre, Harry Potter Brasil - Fanfix, Fan Fictions, RPG Brasil, Fotografia Digital Brasil, Plastico Bolha, etc. etc. etc.

constructopedia

One idea that has been thrown around the lab for a number of years is that of the "constructopedia." The usual constructionist saying is that the person who creates an object or artifact learns the most, so Seymour extended this to the idea of a "constructopedia." Wouldn't it be nice if people could all get together and make their own "constructopedia" where they do the research and submit their knowledge or documentation. Of course a number of people have attempted this sort of idea. For the most part, they end up in highly specific domains with highly specific tools needed to construct them.

Arguably, sites like Get Crafty and Craftster are constructopedias. Arguably, the entire WWW is a giant constructopedia where individuals create and post their own content. But the best and most successful "true" constructopedia I've ever seen is the Wikipedia. It's a completely open and editable wiki that is an encyclopedia, but was/is being constructed by anyone who wishes to participate. People can add entries, remove entries, modify entries - whatever they wish. It is completely open and quality control is by other users.

It has been interesting to watch the Wikipedia evolve from something rather casual, yet serious, into a very encyclopedic object. The entries have become very formal with a kind of consistency across them, like the writers are emulating encyclopedia writing. At the same time, entries connect links to references as well as to other articles. An article on Neal Stephenson, for example, links to his personal web page as well as to the web pages of his various books and to articles about him.

The whole endeavor is grassroots and very impressive. It requires no special technology beyond a web browser. Adding/editing entries is a trivial process. It is still primarily textual, but contains links to sites with different forms of media (photos, sound recordings, etc). All in all, two thumbs up :)

Thursday, June 17, 2004

online communities

Here are a number of links to sites related to fan fiction, blog-based role-playing games and crafting communities:

Orkut - Orkut is a social networking system which has space for people to create communities (ie. bboards that individuals can join). The range varies from Moleskine notebooks to the Pittsburgh Steelers to knitting, Neil Gaiman, fan fiction, etc. Communities can also be linked to related communities (knitting to crocheting for example).

Craftster - Craftster is a space specifically for people who are into crafts. The bulletin boards are separated by topic area and within topics, so for example there is a section for knitting that is broken into space to discuss completed projects vs. future ones. The site is mostly used as a gallery of projects, to post instructions for other ones and to post and answer questions.

These sites contain varying types of introductions to knitting and crocheting. Some use pictures, others animation or video:

Stitch Guide
Knit Tech
crochet.about.com
How to Crochet

The following sites are dedicated to many different types of fanfic, roleplaying games and combinations of the two:

Fanfiction.net - This site is one of the major respositories of fanfic online. These are generally stories written and posted by individuals relating to some book, movie or tv show. Other users can post feedback. Some of the feedback is simply whether the story is good or bad, but others leave actual critiques. Author responses to criticism vary, of course :)

Hogwarts letters - This fanfic is in the form of a letter game. It shows letters that are sent between characters during the Harry Potter books and explores some of the characters' lives and relationships outside of the book. These letters are canon.

LOTR rewritten - These fanfics are examples of how LOTR would be if written by other famous writers.

HP & LOTR Mary Sues - This site collects terrible HP and LOTR fanfics that are found online.

Ads for celebrity RPGs - Celebrity RPGs are very popular with a lot of preteens and teens. This site both advertises games and serves as a place where players can advertise their
characters for other games. In a celebrity RPG, players take the characters of pop stars, movie stars and other media personalities. They create an environment where all of these people, from Britney and Justin to Nicole Kidman and Lenny Kravitz hang out. Sometimes the settings are specific, like teen stars all in school or college together.

HP RPG for grown-ups - Fanfic and RPGs are not just for kids. This site is entirely for grown-ups, although the contents are much less "grown-up" than many of the teen games.

His Dark Materials game - His Dark Materials is a trilogy by Phillip Pullman. This game is based on his books.

Wheel of Time RPG - The Wheel of Time is a neverending series of high fantasy by Robert Jordan.

Abhorsen RPG - The Abhorsen is a YA trilogy by Garth Nix.

Buffy RPG - These are some "classic" blog-based RPGs based on the Buffyverse.
Buffy RPG
Buffy RPG

Opportunity Rover / Spirit Rover - Not all blog-based roleplaying are multi-player games based on media publications. These blogs are from the point of view of the Mars rovers.

Note on abbreviations/terminology:

RPG = role-playing game
HP = Harry Potter
LOTR = Lord of the Rings

canon = These fanfics aim to be true to the original story's universe. Straight characters don't suddenly come out. Evil characters don't gain sympathetic qualities.

Mary Sue = (n.): 1. A variety of story, first identified in the fan fiction community, but quickly recognized as occurring elsewhere, in which normal story values are grossly subordinated to inadequately transformed personal wish-fulfillment fantasies, often involving heroic or romantic interactions with the cast of characters of some popular entertainment. 2. A distinctive type of character appearing in these stories who represents an idealized version of the author. 3. A cluster of tendencies and characteristics commonly found in Mary Sue-type stories. 4. A body of literary theory, originally generated by the fanfic community, which has since spread to other fields (f.i., professional SF publishing) because it’s so darn useful. The act of committing Mary Sue-ism is sometimes referred to as "self-insertion." (from Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog)

Monday, March 08, 2004

leap from imitation to invention

Well, the last few posts were quite cantankerous! Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Since my Master's, I've been talking about the cycle of construction and deconstruction. People learn by making, yes, but they also learn by taking apart. They look at examples, copy them, tweak them, in order to understand and make things. Feynman talks about taking radios apart. Programmers find example code online or in reference books and work from there. Writers read other writers. Programmers code and debug and code again. Writers write, edit, rewrite. The process of creation is cyclical.

My unsolved question of the day is how does the leap occur between working from examples to invention? Take poetry for example. Say I'm a teenager who reads a lot of Sylvia Plath. All of my poems are in Plath's style. As I start to read Louise Gluck, my style starts to copy hers. I'm learning about language and poetry through this imitation and also expressing myself. At some point, I start to develop my own style of writing, my voice, through modifying the styles I've been copying. How does this transition happen, and does it always happen?

What happens in the space between imitation and invention?

Sunday, March 07, 2004

a response to Alan Kay

In my last post, I was talking about whether a project is "more" constructionist than another. Part of it was tongue in cheek, part of it was to raise the question of who decides? What does it mean? Is "constructionism" a word with meaning, does it have too much history to mean anything, or do people use it to justify absolutely anything? And does that matter? You can be a constructionist without knowing it. You can call a project constructivist even if it isn't. Does the name mean anything?

This post responds to a message sent by Alan Kay to the Squeakland mailing list on February 24, 2004 in response to two people's comments about Squeak and using it in the classroom. Suffice to say, parts of it really bothered me.

First, he recommended a book with the following statement:

"It contains ideas and directions for about a dozen projects that children like to do, are "good" for them epistemologically, and have been thoroughly tested."

Let's take that apart. The book has ideas and directions for about a dozen projects that children like to do and the projects have been thoroughly tested. That sounds okay. Since Alan often references Seymour and goes for constructionist ideas, I'm assuming the book contains a list of project ideas like "make an ecology" and isn't a recipe book for projects and how each project must be implemented (which of course would be an instruction set and not constructive).

The part that troubles me is the middle section. What does it mean for projects to be good for someone epistemologically? Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowing, or a theory of the nature of knowledge. I don't understand what his phrase even means. This bothers me. He is an expert mathematician and computer scientist who is discussing "real math" and "school math," describing the differences, and evaluating projects from that perspective. That's fine. But then he picks up this language, justifying the projects by saying they're good for the kids, like a Squeak Etoys project will build character, but no-- it's good for them epistemologically, which sounds much better than character! Actually, this sounds like meaningless jargon to me, and it makes me nervous that he's using it.

Another excerpt:

"Squeak etoys are in the form of a scriptable multimedia environment, so what gets authored can range from presentations (such as in powerpoint), stories and games (such as in MS Word, Director and Flash), to mathematical and scientific simulations. Each of these can have a little (to a lot) of overlap with various kinds of educational goals (including good ones). This is rather like introducing a word processor into a classroom "plus plus". That is, the authoring system needs to be really open-ended to deal with all of its genre (a word processor in which one could only write stories but not essays about important ideas would be a terrible use of technology).... Children don't know much about writing or math or science, but they do know a lot of stories and games, and a bit about stories and games, so they tend to plunge fearlessly into using a dynamic medium like Squeak etoys to make representations of stories and games of many different kinds. This simply follows previous observations of children with LogoWriter and Hypercard. There is nothing wrong with this, it's an easy way for them to learn the mechanics of using the system, and they can occasionally learn something beyond stories and games (e.g. a little about math) in the process."

I agree that any open and flexible technology can be used trivially or in ways that were not intended. What bothers me from this excerpt is the attitude towards "stories and games" as though they're trivial to create and don't constitute real forms of projects (such as things that include real math) and the hierarchy he creates of projects and technologies with presentations/PowerPoint at the bottom, math & science at the top and stories & games somewhere in the middle. It reminds me of Piaget's scale of concrete to abstract thinking. Didn't Gilligan already debunk that and show there is no hierarchy?

Real math vs. school math is an important point. We want children to understand math principles and not plug numbers into equations mechanically, with no understanding of the whys or hows of it. But why should stories and games justify themselves through math and science? Is there no other real learning? Say that Squeak is a tool for math and science, as Logo is a tool for geometry. Say Squeak is not a tool for expression. Do not trivialize important and meaningful domains because they are not your own.

That said, designing a sophisticated, interesting game requires advanced mathematical and programming skills, both of which Alan seems to value. Many children have played video games and aren't satisfied with designing simplistic games. They push into hard problems in order to program their own, compelling games, including in the Squeak environment. So programming games should fall into the "nontrivial" category, even by the standards presented in this email.

In the excerpt, Alan seems to value the construction of an essay over a story, even though neither is mathematical. In some ways, I understand. An essay is the logical presentation of an argument. It's analytic. But in many ways, a strong essay is simply a well-constructed story. Both show a fluency in writing and expression of ideas; they are completely related.

Telling a story in Squeak is probably quite silly because it is a programming environment. Text fields don't push the capabilities of the tool, and the tool doesn't support much text-editing or typography. When students want to create Squeak stories or games, facilitators may want to push on interactive fiction since the kids are interested in games and stories anyway and the teachers want them to learn "something real."

But this statement is problematic:

"A good project in Squeak etoys is one that first "appeals as art" and then has some serious nontrivial content that has to be worked out to get the whole above threshold. The "serious nontrivial content" could be mathematical, scientific, theatrical, musical, visual, etc., or some mixture."

It completely trivializes art, and tells kids that in order to do something with serious nontrivial content, they have to be tricked into it with the nice facade of "art." It's demeaning to both art and the "nontrivial content." Maybe what needs to follow is a discussion of how "school art" is not "real art" and "real artists" work in deep and meaningful ways that aren't represented in a school's curriculum. Would that help? Because personally, I don't see how expression can possibly be viewed in such a trivial manner.

constructionism and programming

This is changing a little bit from my theme of blogs, roleplaying games, fanfic and craft communties, but ties into some broader research from the group.

The word "constructionism" came from Seymour Papert who was refining Piaget's idea of "constructivism." Broken down, Piaget said that people learn by constructing knowledge. People don't just take information and internalize it, make it an inextricable part of themselves. They make connections to their past experiences and fit new knowledge into an existing context, an existing understanding of the world and how it works. Papert added that this process of construction can be mediated, so for example, someone can make an object and use it for reflection. He believed that the computer could be a powerful medium for this type of expression and reflection and focused on this as research.

Now because Papert was a mathematician and popularized the idea of constructionism with his example of Logo and learning geometry through programming the turtle, many of the examples of constructionism have become synonymous with math and science. This is the avenue that many followed. This should be broadened.

Of course it was only right for Papert to speak from his experience. His ideas were powerful because they stemmed from his rich experiences as a mathematician.

But because Seymour coined the term "constructionism" and talked about it in a particular context, it has stuck and become almost trivialized. Programming in and of itself isn't a constructionist activity. There needs to be a meaningul purpose or project around it. Some code is just annoying and shouldn't be that annoying to write. A problem set from database systems is about as constructive as a set of story problems in math class-- ie, not very. Some programming is extremely constructive-- in writing the program, a person is working through a real problem in a formal language and system. The act of programming clarifies the idea and thought process. Similarly, Legos are construction toys, but if you're just copying a design out of a book and aren't thinking, just acting mechanically, well, that activity isn't so constructive any more.

When art is involved, things get more complicated. At what level is programming useful and at what point is it a hindrance to expression? Creating art takes a certain level of fluency in both the medium and mode of expression. If I want to make a song, I need to have some understanding of an instrument as well as how to make music. If I want to make an interactive poem, I need to understand poetry as well as how to make an animation either through code or in a piece of software. When do you want to use software with predefined tools and when do you want to make your own?

There's a continuum. Making the poem is a constructive activity. Hopefully there's creation and reflection. Programming adds another level of complexity. There's the creation and reflection of the program as well as of the piece. Do we need fluency in one before attempting it in the other?

And is interactive poetry viewed as more "constructionist" because there's a computer involved than poetry written in a journal? What is an in-person poetry workshop with no online collaborative space and no interactive pieces? Is it something that has been done for decades and is therefore uninteresting? What about the many different ways that people conduct workshops? Some give assignments, others ask people to come with work and take it from there. Are blog-based RPGs interesting for being an online collaboration, for exemplifying the appropriation of a tool, for representing a new way of telling a story or because kids are writing for themselves and creating communities around writing?

Why is constructionism interesting and what can we add to it and to society by studying it when according to both Piaget and Papert, people learn constructively-- whether they're in an instructionist situation or constructive one. Is it to make learning more efficient? More enjoyable? Both?

These are just questions I'm throwing out, and I think everyone will respond differently.

My answers are that in studying constructionism, I hope to become a better teacher and learner. I want to understand what makes for a compelling and interesting learning situation beyond having a special teacher-- or rather, understand what makes a teacher special. I'm not sure about overthrowing the system of education, but I do believe in setting examples and letting people learn constructively from them.

And as for what is constructionist-- anyone who practices is constructionist-- anyone who creates theories or objects and reflects upon their meaning and crafting. Scientists, engineers, mathematicians, artists and writers are all practicing constructionists, whether they know it or not. They're people who try to understand instead of working mechanically, and in trying to understand, create artifacts of words, equations, maps, models and yes, computer programs.

What makes a text appropriable?

What makes material appropriable? There is a ton of Harry Potter fanfic out there. That makes sense given the sheer numbers of people who read the series. X-Files was huge, but the fanfiction dwindled at a point. Same with Buffy. I've noticed that series in progress are much more compelling than completed series. This is related to Henry Jenkins's observation that people write fanfic because they are both enthusiastic and frustrated. Much of the X-Files fanfic died when in the final episode, Mulder and Scully finally got together. In many ways, it was more interesting for fans to make their own stories about Mulder and Scully than to see how it actually played out. And once it was played out, the fanfic wasn't as compelling because the series had already resolved the issue.

So there has to be a rich world, but gaps in that world where fans can explore and create. It's a context with particular rules-- a starting point. The starting point isn't just having information, though. I've seen RPGs that try to start based on the lives of celebrities like Britney, Justin, etc. These haven't taken off because a certain amount of context is missing. The celebrities also live their own lives, so their daily actions take away a fanfic author's control. The most successful celebrity RPGs I've seen put the celebrities into a particular context, such as if all of them attended a private boarding school or college together. This gives the writers much more freedom because the celebrities have a reason for being in the same space, a certain rule set to follow (school and school type activities) besides freeing these characters from the real people who have their own lives.

So agency is inextricable from this. The fanfic author needs authorial control. When series are completed, it resolves issues that fanfic authors were exploring, taking away their agency to make things happen to characters or between characters, but new books in series provide rich new material and renew interest in fanfic.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Social Software

Besides appropriation of worlds, characters and images, I'm also interested in how people appropriate technologies to serve their purposes instead of the intended purposes.

Livejournal wasn't meant for roleplayers to co-construct stories. Neither was IM. But people have been able to use a combination of the two to play their games.

Friendster and Orkut are similarly interesting. danah comments on Friendster and Orkut from the perspective of a social networks researcher. She gave a rather scathing review of Orkut recently that made me go and join up immediately to see why it was so bad. I understood her points about friends, ratings and the way networks are set up and viewed. But I have to admit, I like Orkut. Why? It's community-based, not individual-based.

Friendster was set up as a dating service. You list your friends, see how you're linked to their friends, etc. with the theory that you're more likely to find a partner through friends than through some algorithm. I thought Friendster was pretty boring once I set up my profile. Sure, I found some long lost friends and could send messages to all of my friends, but I never sent any because I didn't have anything I wanted to say to the entire group represented since they were from very different social circles. I was interested in friends/activity partners, but given the interface, it was hard to find people with similar interests. I thought the Fakesters and Pretendsters were much more interesting and liked how people hacked the system, although even that couldn't go more deeply than a profile with a few links to friends. There were testimonials, but all in all, it's hard to tell a story in a space like that. Livejournal provides much more freedom and customization for a hackable system. So Friendster wasn't compelling to me either as an appropriable system or as a space to meet new people. My connections to my friends stayed outside of that space, via phone, email and in person.

Orkut fixes the Friendster problem of finding friends, activity partners, and people to network with for business. Anyone can create a community and there are numerous communities available to join, from schools to authors to bands, political discussions and craft communities. You can see what communities your friends are in and if those are for you, or just something in which your friend is interested. The communities provide basic bulletin board services. This seems to be a much better way to meet people who share interests. You get a space to post online, get to know a person, before deciding to contact that person as an individual. You can still do the Friendster type things like see who your friends' friends are, etc. but the Orkut community spaces provide much more context for meeting people who share interests and for having discussions.

I haven't seen much Orkut hacking in the Fakester/Pretendster sense or in the way Livejournal has been appropriated by RPGers and don't know if that'll follow. I have seen numerous special interest communities develop, though, some of which are thriving, others that merely exist. These groups are diverse, and I enjoy that community aspect of Orkut. It may get too big, but I've found communities on crafts, fanfic, virtual ethnography and various other personal interests. I'd love to see interesting visualizations of my personal social network and how my network fits into some larger group, but the way Orkut is set up now, I don't find the connections to my friends circle any more compelling than Friendster. But the broader community development is great.

Bits of Background

This is probably going to be a really long post. I wanted to start this blog with a bit of background, some of the things I've been looking at and what's so compelling about them. There's a spread between writing, craft and community. I'm also interested in how people take something that exists and learn by making something else out of it. So this is my disclaimer for being a bit all over the place. But after all, that's the purpose of this blog--to pull some of the ideas together through writing and to find new directions to follow.

I read a lot of children's books and YA literature. A couple of teen novels intrigued me because the authors (or at least their marketers) were making great use of online technologies, which extended the print world in fantastic ways. The book Sloppy Firsts, for example, consists of journal entries by a girl named Jess, and copies of emails and letters she sent to her best friend, Hope, over the year that Hope moved to another state. This is fairly standard for a teen novel, which some authors accomplish better than others. The cool online extension was that "Hope's outbox" was put online, so fans could read Hope's side of the story via her email responses to Jess in an interface that looked just like an email client.

Then there was the The Black Book: Diary of a Teenage Stud series. I felt compelled to read a book from this series when I stumbled across a bboard of girls arguing over whether or not Jonah Black, the protagonist, is real. In true Lemony Snicket style, the book is published as a diary under the name of the protagonist. The book also mentions that Jonah's best friend sets up a website for him. Of course, a website exists under Jonah's name. These girls were analyzing the text, pulling pieces out, researching the town where the story takes place, etc. etc. to support or debunk Jonah's reality. (The website says that the characters are fictional, by the way, and a few girls read the fine print. Some believed it, others had conspiracy theories to explain it :) )

The Gossip Girl series also blends print and online technologies. The series is written by an anonymous society girl (think Paris Hilton) who tells stories about her circle of friends in the novel and updates her website with the latest gossip. This series is obviously fictional since the author's name is on the cover, but still plays with the technologies.

Author/fan relationships have also changed more directly. For example Neil Gaiman writes an addictive blog where he posts random thoughts and life events like a typical journal writer, gives updates on his writing and speaking engagements, posts links that interest him and answers some of the emails he's received from readers.

Then there are the various forms of fan fiction, from single-author novels to collaboratively constructed stories.

Henry Jenkins has written extensively and subtly about fan fiction. He's written more about the traditional kind, one person, one story, although he discusses fan cultures in depth, such as fan gatherings to watch a show or attend conferences. He describes networks of fans who all write and share fiction.

Blog-based role-playing games interest me because they present a new form of story construction. Individuals play characters, as in an RPG, and interact within a community. As Sherry Turkle mentions, characters play out issues in RPGs, or bring things that are happening in their lives into the game to work them out. However, interactions in blog-based RPGs are documented and archived. There's a written history that can be read by others, so it's more public, and individuals can know entire stories even when their characters don't.

These RPGs generally combine a variety of technologies, so characters can maintain personal character blogs, post to community blogs and also IM each other in character, then either post their conversations or refer to events within their journals. For the most part, "traditional" RPGs have been location-based, with characters running into each other and speaking in a particular space. Here, the characters don't just "run into" each other. Run-ins are written in, with stories organized by character instead of space.

Game moderators determine the rules of how characters fit into the author's world. Are the characters canon or can players change the way the author created the character? Can new characters be added? If the game started before the last book/show of the series was released, do they take the author's changes into account in the game or just keep it divergent?

Anyone who writes fanfic makes these decisions before writing. In a shared game environment, these rules must be explicit, along with the consequences of breaking the rules. How will the mods and other players deal with a player who breaks the stated rules?

Many of the blog-based rpg communities have in character and out of character spaces where these kinds of discussions can take place, along with introductions of new characters or clarifications of rules.

As Henry has repeatedly stated, fans participate in critical "reading" of a "text," whether that text is written or viewed. For me, the compelling part of fan fiction is that readers take this material, then create something with it, either on their own or collaboratively. They think about every aspect of a text. In a Harry Potter blog-based RPG for example, players determine everything from an overall class schedule based on the courses their characters are taking to how that character will be represented in a visual icon. Will the movie character be used or some other famous person or maybe an anime-style sketch of the character?

Fan communities also have a means of disseminating rules and jargon. There are some sites devoted to providing definitions for newcomers as to what "canon" means or "slash," what comprises a "mary sue" character and what makes them so terrible. Someone new to the world of fanfic, or at least to the fanfic community, can use those as a reference to enter into the language of the community.

There's also a fairly stringent review process for many who share fanfic online. Some spaces allow reader feedback, such as fanfiction.net, so readers can tell fanfic authors exactly what is good or bad about a story. Some websites provide space for fanfic readers to post the worst fanfic they can find so others can tear them apart while others extol favorite fanfic authors (besides creators of the original world).

On a slightly different note, I started to look at craft communities in relation to fanfic communities and found a number of intersecting points. There are numerous online communities popping up around crafts--from dolling to knitting (which of course is extremely popular right now). Again, some spaces provide information, such as "how to knit" or "how to make a doll" while others share portfolios of what they've created or patterns to make your own. Many of these spaces are blogs, as well.

Naturally this is different from fanfic since there's a different type of craft involved. Issues of copyright still emerge as people discuss ownership of patterns or icons they've created. The nature of the shared world is different, knitters don't share a fictional works, although participants are very aware of being part of some type of subculture with its own literature and referents.

One remarkable aspect of online craft communities is the cross-generational nature. Teens to grandmothers participate within this space, teaching and learning from each other. Fanfic is cross-generational, although I don't think the spread is nearly as varied, although I may be wrong about that. Blog-based RPGs seem to be populated mostly by teens, whereas individually written fanfic seems to vary more. Other forms of collaborative fanfic, such as taking turns adding to a story or "the letter game" where people create a story by exchanging letters in character, seem to occur within age groups. This makes sense since direct collaborations occur between peers. However, with craft communities at least, the members of the community are predominantly female. Many of the blog-based RPGs seem to have more females, as well, althouth I can't back that statement with hard fact. This is just through playing and reading OOC blogs on various games. I don't know the break-up of the more traditional fan fiction writing community.

The craft communities provide interesting spaces for learning and also support. Some people have created software for making dolls or for creating new knitting patterns or calculating adjustments if different gauge needles are used or different yarn. Others have provided step-by-step instructions with illustrations on learning a new craft, while others teach through online videos or animations. The support comes from others within the community with varied experiences. Experts can discuss problems while beginners can share frustrations or ask for help. Distance/online learning specialists and researchers can learn quite a bit from observing these types of communities and what makes them such successful learning environments.

Okay, that's all for now. Following posts will focus on one interesting aspect of this stuff or another. Please comment on where you think I'm being vague, superficial or silly and what you think I should follow-up on. Also, comments on methodology would be very helpful since so far I've just been observing various communities and would like to do a real study. Feel free to email me with comments if you don't want to go public, although I'd appreciate public comments that others can respond to :)

Monday, February 16, 2004

Introduction

I've been thinking about a lot of different aspects of online communities over the past few months, especially regarding specific hobbyist communities, and finally decided to set up a weblog to "talk aloud" about some of my observations and thoughts. This first post is just a placeholder, but I hope to put some real content up over the next few days.

Stay tuned...