Development, Collaboration, and Production

For the most part, on this blog,  I have using unquestioningly glued the concept of user-generated content to Web 2.0.  There is no doubt that user-generated content is essential in a Web 2.0 network, but there is not need to treat them like conjoined twins.  It is true that one of the great industrial movements of this young century has been the shift in the means of production to the user and the raise in the value of information production and processing.  

Two outstanding examples of these user-generated Web 2.0 sites are www.Housingmaps.com and www.Wikipedia.org.  The former is referenced by William Hart-Davidson in his article for Interncom magazine (September October, 2007) entitled "Web 2.0:  What Technical Communicators Should Know."   HousingMaps is considered a mashup.  The creator, Paul Rademacher (a user of Google Maps and Craigslist), found out that if you feed adresses from Craigslist into Google's mapping system, then you could track the reality graphically.  The user, Rademacher, produced this system and provided a new, more effeicient way (at least for people looking for a place to live) organize information.  The user has the ability to control production and information.  

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a organic metaphor of the idea that knowledge produced through efforts of an entire community versus through the efforts of an  individual who holds the power with access to knowledge.  On Wikipedia, users (thousands of users) work to write and edit articles creating this amolgom of human experience.  A process of recording history that used to take decades at the hands of few scribes is now being done by thousands of knowledgeable writers on an hourly basis.  Not to mention, Wikipedia is a shining example of user collaboration.  In the Web 2.0 production process, users often collaborate on projects via Web 2.0 application to produce a product. 

So, yes, user-based production is an obvious aspect of the current internet.   

But, as I mentioned before, the field of techncial communication and professional writing should not over look the concept of Community Development and Web 2.0.  From this inexperienced observers point of view, development creates stakeholders.  The more stakeholders an organization holds, the more power they command.  That makes the key question how do you build a network of stakeholders?  A better question might be, how do you create a system through stakeholders can collaborate to accomplish the goals of the organization?

The Genetics Alliance, a non-profit organization that seeks to educate the public on the benefits of genetic research in the Health Care industry, created WikiGenetics to act as an open forum that spreads knowledge of all things Genetics through the effort of various, independent, and volunteer contributers.  This Wiki falls into the same purpose as Wikipedia--create lengthy articles that have true educational depth.  Such length and depth, which reverberates through the entire site, can intimidate some users limiting their interaction with and relationship with the parent organizations (and their causes).  

With this, the stakeholders are clearly defined:  those affected by genetics ailments and research in some way.  There are other situations where stakeholders and their relationships are ambiguous.  The recent turmoil in Iran has spawned an organic coalescence fueled human compassion and our fear of death.  Twitter is abuzz with action.  Iran's regime feared the genre so that it was banned.  I guess it is something like a virtual book burning.  YouTube had a similar fate (though the block was not completely successful).  Except, the stakeholders were not reading content, they were producing it.  Should a technical communicator who helps create and implement a Web 2.0 system with chaos in mind?  Should we prepare for organically unexpected uses of our systems?  

But what about WikiGenetics, that was created or pitched by some communication specialist, who had a mind for genre and ecology.  They knew a Wiki would service their needs effectively.  The interesting decision in this process has to do with delivery.  How will the information be presented without having a vague conception of what hte information will be?  The information will be generated by the user.  The method of delivery (genre) is decided by the technical communicator?  

This post has progress long enough.   

Modemless Users

Is health care a right?  That  was a hot-button issue in 2008, and much of the angst has boiled over into 2009.  During his campaign, now President Obama spoke whole heartedly about providing health care for the citizens of this nation.  He also spoke about greater government transparency using internet, specifically Web 2.0 products like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.  His campaign even utilized many application used by sites like these.  But, not everyone was involved.  Numerous homeless citizens could not participate in online dialectic over American Policy.  But this is beginning to change.  

"You don't need a TV. You don't need a radio. You don't even need a newspaper," says Mr. Pitts, an aspiring poet in a purple cap and yellow fleece jacket, who says he has been homeless for two years. "But you need the Internet."

The quote above is from a recent Wall Street Journal article by Phred Drorak.  The article shows that the homeless men and woman are finding ways of making their presence online.  Some of the individuals cited in the article are fairly successful bloggers.  But, this raises another issue.  Internet access is limited to people like Mr. Pitts.  They hang around coffee shops and anyplace else with free Wifi.  Some shelters are installing computers with access to the internet.  In light of this, Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing.net made a prediction:

"in five years, a UN convention will enshrine network access as a human right (preemptive strike against naysayers: "Human rights" aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such "nonessentials" as free speech, education, and privacy). In ten years, we won't understand how anyone thought it wasn't a human right."

So, how does this affect usability?  The call for universal connection is increasing around the world.  Rising Voices is an example of such an organization.  You can read about them on my other blog, Drowning Out Silence, and their website.  Programs like One Laptop Per Child are committed to providing disadvantaged youths with laptops and access to the internet (You can also read more discussion about OLPC on Drowning Out Silence).  Many of those laptops have found their way to disadvantaged youths in the U.S.  The point is that access to the internet is becoming less and less exclusive.  Along with this, production on the web is becoming less and less exclusive.  Users in masses are building the digital world through communication and innovation.  This may be a little Marxist but, that is besides the point.  

The point is the individual user now has considerable production power and that power is no longer sitting in middle class suburbs.  It is moving to every nook of humanity seemingly regardless of class, creed, or color.  What will social networking mean in a universal network?  How will copyright be effected in world where production overtakes the product?  How will we create a usable network for a billion people?  

Independent Study

This independent study is focused on studying the relationship between the professional writing and web 2.0.  There has been some study into how users' roles are changing with advent of online spaces that foster user-generated-content and user cooperation.  Professional writers who work to create web communication portals are now contending with the user who is now more apart of the production process.  Web based communication products are being created within this participatory culture.  The information age is turning into the production age.  Web spaces are not just used to search and gather for information, but also help generate content or generate  web-based products.  There are individuals out there creating spaces online in this participation age.  Essentially, they are doing the work of technical writers, who have long been focused on usability, user-centered design, and efficient communication processes.  

Part of this independent study is working with individuals who design Web 2.0 products for users who have different ideas about how they should be using these sites.  So, this independent study will take the next step in inquiry into Web 2.0 application design and usability.  It moves from the analysis of the user and impacts of usability to an analysis of the user-centered design process.  This study will be conducted via readings (scholarly articles, news stories, case studies) and interviews of individuals who design these products.   The readings will not go beyond my own research of various journals and books.  

The final product of this study will yield an article for Intercom magazine on how technical writers on are working with Web 2.0 tools.  I will also turn this into a proposal for ATTW as well (this will be a joint proposal--I have joined with other students on this project).  Last but not least, I will design a functional online system using Web 2.0 tools.  During this project,  I will act as a technical communicator who has been asked to implement a usable communication system utilizing Web 2.0 tools that foster user collaboration and user-generated content.   

It just so happens that I am doing this work at my current internship (more details about internship later).  But, I designed a social media outreach campaign in an urban minority community.  In this campaign, I proposed using Facebook, Blogger, and YouTube.  My job was to fathom how these communication portals would be used.  In addition, I was also asked to implement social media for all of our clients at my internship (all clients are either non-profits or government entities).  This may provide the perfect opportunity to work on this project.