April 26, 2009 at 23:02Copyright spaces
The reason blogs have taken off is because they made publishing text easy for non-techies.
- In fact, the publication of texts was available to non-tech people, for example, on forums long before the appearance and massive development of blogs. Those. that is not the reason. Blogs, unlike forums with their “collective” texts, have a much more pronounced author component - this is one of the main reasons for the popularity of blogs, in my opinion. However, without commenting and friendliness, i.e. without elements of a collective social environment, blogs obviously would not have become equally popular. Such statistics are not enough for conclusions, therefore, not so much a conclusion as an assumption: the success of content-generating mass services to a large extent depends on the balance of individual-author and social-collective principles. But what is the right balance, what should we strive for?
Traditional society is largely based on vertically hierarchical relationships (boss-subordinate relations), which generally contributes to the manifestation of the “author’s principle” among bosses. Let's look at private business - the names of the owner or founder are often played out in company names. Perhaps the most striking examples of copyright business are obtained when it is associated with the professional specialization of the founder - the clinic of Dr. Bubnovsky, the Institute of Natalia Nesterova, and the design studio of Artemy Lebedev. In art, classic author's projects are various kinds of productions - films, performances, ballets. Although the director usually does not participate in them himself, they say "a film of such and such", "a performance staged by such and such." In science, research institutes or their units bear someone’s names only posthumously, but this means that at one time they were to a certain extent intravital author projects of these people. Political and religious projects are also often copyrighted and based on vertical links. Probably, the success of all these vertical models is largely associated with the correct proportion of individual and collective - on the one hand, they allow the individual creative, leadership, organizational talents of the leader to be revealed, on the other hand, they take advantage of collective work with the distribution of responsibilities, specializations and functions.
However, vertical connections are completely uncharacteristic for the Internet; horizontal communications rule here. The only tools of direct submission on the network are the rights of moderators of various resources, and basically it is only a “stick” - to restrict access or ban. There are also “gingerbread”, they appear indirectly through rating systems and encourage the necessary behavior, but this is usually a collective influence, and not a moderator function. In addition, the moderator is usually not thought of by the “author” (ideological inspirer) of the resource, his position is considered rather technical - to monitor the order and compliance with the rules. Of the rare exceptions - the Orthodox forum of Andrei Kuraev. In it, he is not just the main moderator, he determines the politics, themes, focus and general spirit of this online platform. The horizontally connected environment of the Internet contributes to that the authors basically create the content themselves (or collect other people's content), which is hardly the most effective way of production. Accordingly, the activity formats of famous authors are mainly blogs, less often offline sites (although Nosiksaid that it’s less likely only in RuNet), even less often, “the media of one person”. In the case of Internet media, by the way, we also have an exception, since they usually reproduce the vertical links that are in the “real”, i.e. staff of paid editors, journalists and other employees. It can be assumed that the Internet media reproduced the traditional model almost unchanged because the Internet did not significantly change either the meaning and format of the media or their monetization model - although magazines and newspapers cost money, it quickly pays for the cost of paper and so on, which makes profit ; profit is made on advertising (this consideration was expressed by amilner) Online publications are free, but there is no paper cost for them, because their free does not radically change the situation - the main income is still made on advertising.
Here we come to the question of why horizontal connections prevail in the internet. If we accept that monetary interest is one of the main factors that motivates people in the "real" to organize into vertical structures (otherwise there would be much less people who want to be subordinates), then one of the visible reasons is the strong differences with the "real" in monetization schemes. Perhaps the monetization methods were influenced by the initial free of charge of many Internet services - this prompted the use of an advertising model everywhere and changed the conditions of competition and the nature of the development of services. Perhaps the effect here is the orientation of mass services on the average user, who usually does not think about his own endeavors with the need to involve other users. Accordingly, Internet services are rarely positioned as so that paid services between users are assumed (as in a private business) or the ability for one user to decide how much money others will receive (such as when financing from funds). However, the development of the Internet will not be able to ignore the advantages of vertical entities, which are confirmed by the experience of traditional society, so the trend will be directed there one way or another. Especially considering that monetary interest in this issue is not the only one - people can gain valuable experience from collective cooperation and develop social ties. Another important difference of “real” is the presence of a “super-service” in the form of a state, when, using tax and other organizational mechanisms, funds are redistributed to finance such vertical structures, which would not have arisen as a result of the activity of private business alone - the army, fundamental science, etc. Probably, something similar can, in principle, be done within the framework of quite massive Internet services, but a separate article should be devoted to these issues. It should also be added that vertical associations can also be based on ideological motives (for example, on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games. on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games. on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games.
The efficiency of independent content production by authors is lower than in vertically-collective structures; Nevertheless, it can be quite high and largely depends on the characteristics of the author’s audience. Typically, authors are able to produce quality content (including for free) if their audience 1) is relevant, i.e. capable of appreciating; 2) quite numerous; 3) is quite “durable” in the sense that the author’s content is not one-time use, but it can be used in the future for the development of other authors. In this regard, the horizontally-oriented environment of the Internet also has room to develop. I mentioned earlier about the problems of various network formats regarding this aspect: stand-alone copyright sites, apparently, are good only for already established authors with an established audience. Or in combination with the simultaneous use of other resources that have a collective component. Blogs emphasize the author’s beginning, but the author must build his audience himself, and this is a long and specific process, because not every author of good content is also good at shaping his audience. In forums, the audience is usually already formed and the probability of being noticed by it is high, but its volume, as a rule, is quite limited and the problem of relevance often remains relevant. The volume and relevance of the audience on social mediahighly dependent on the voting system. At the same time, as the resource grows in popularity, the composition of its users changes (worsens :)), which means that the voting system must respond to these changes. This is an interesting task and I find it promising, but it is probably not easier than moderating content manually. It almost turns social media into a kind of conventional. As for the "duration", all three of the mentioned formats are not able to provide it - due to positioning and lack of functionality for this. Social databases are good for ensuring the duration and relevance of the audience ., but in their present form they do not give its large volume, and also severely limit the space of author’s self-manifestation. However, the duration and volume are two incompatible things, because no topic can be in the top spotlight of a large audience for a long time. About the same thing can be said about the ratio of volume to relevance - in most cases, an increase in volume means a drop in relevance (this is all the more true the more specialized topics are addressed). But the duration of the audience, most likely, in most cases means its relevance, although the opposite is not necessarily true. Thus, how to find the optimal solution among these contradictory conditions that allows you to reach the largest possible volume, the most relevant and the longest possible audience - this is an urgent problem for the near future.
Previously, I proposed a possible approach to the optimal formation of the author’s audience, but there wasn’t much about stimulating vertical communities. This is not surprising since the monetization scheme was not prescribed. Nevertheless, ideologically, the two indicated directions of development represent one thing - the development of the idea of authorship in its most general understandings, the stimulation of author's self-manifestation, and the identification of the formats for such activity. I would summarize what was said in the concept of copyright spaces - this is a collective environment for individual author’s activity, and the resource environment in general (information, financial, cultural, etc.), and the format (interface) of their interaction.
- In fact, the publication of texts was available to non-tech people, for example, on forums long before the appearance and massive development of blogs. Those. that is not the reason. Blogs, unlike forums with their “collective” texts, have a much more pronounced author component - this is one of the main reasons for the popularity of blogs, in my opinion. However, without commenting and friendliness, i.e. without elements of a collective social environment, blogs obviously would not have become equally popular. Such statistics are not enough for conclusions, therefore, not so much a conclusion as an assumption: the success of content-generating mass services to a large extent depends on the balance of individual-author and social-collective principles. But what is the right balance, what should we strive for?
Traditional society is largely based on vertically hierarchical relationships (boss-subordinate relations), which generally contributes to the manifestation of the “author’s principle” among bosses. Let's look at private business - the names of the owner or founder are often played out in company names. Perhaps the most striking examples of copyright business are obtained when it is associated with the professional specialization of the founder - the clinic of Dr. Bubnovsky, the Institute of Natalia Nesterova, and the design studio of Artemy Lebedev. In art, classic author's projects are various kinds of productions - films, performances, ballets. Although the director usually does not participate in them himself, they say "a film of such and such", "a performance staged by such and such." In science, research institutes or their units bear someone’s names only posthumously, but this means that at one time they were to a certain extent intravital author projects of these people. Political and religious projects are also often copyrighted and based on vertical links. Probably, the success of all these vertical models is largely associated with the correct proportion of individual and collective - on the one hand, they allow the individual creative, leadership, organizational talents of the leader to be revealed, on the other hand, they take advantage of collective work with the distribution of responsibilities, specializations and functions.
However, vertical connections are completely uncharacteristic for the Internet; horizontal communications rule here. The only tools of direct submission on the network are the rights of moderators of various resources, and basically it is only a “stick” - to restrict access or ban. There are also “gingerbread”, they appear indirectly through rating systems and encourage the necessary behavior, but this is usually a collective influence, and not a moderator function. In addition, the moderator is usually not thought of by the “author” (ideological inspirer) of the resource, his position is considered rather technical - to monitor the order and compliance with the rules. Of the rare exceptions - the Orthodox forum of Andrei Kuraev. In it, he is not just the main moderator, he determines the politics, themes, focus and general spirit of this online platform. The horizontally connected environment of the Internet contributes to that the authors basically create the content themselves (or collect other people's content), which is hardly the most effective way of production. Accordingly, the activity formats of famous authors are mainly blogs, less often offline sites (although Nosiksaid that it’s less likely only in RuNet), even less often, “the media of one person”. In the case of Internet media, by the way, we also have an exception, since they usually reproduce the vertical links that are in the “real”, i.e. staff of paid editors, journalists and other employees. It can be assumed that the Internet media reproduced the traditional model almost unchanged because the Internet did not significantly change either the meaning and format of the media or their monetization model - although magazines and newspapers cost money, it quickly pays for the cost of paper and so on, which makes profit ; profit is made on advertising (this consideration was expressed by amilner) Online publications are free, but there is no paper cost for them, because their free does not radically change the situation - the main income is still made on advertising.
Here we come to the question of why horizontal connections prevail in the internet. If we accept that monetary interest is one of the main factors that motivates people in the "real" to organize into vertical structures (otherwise there would be much less people who want to be subordinates), then one of the visible reasons is the strong differences with the "real" in monetization schemes. Perhaps the monetization methods were influenced by the initial free of charge of many Internet services - this prompted the use of an advertising model everywhere and changed the conditions of competition and the nature of the development of services. Perhaps the effect here is the orientation of mass services on the average user, who usually does not think about his own endeavors with the need to involve other users. Accordingly, Internet services are rarely positioned as so that paid services between users are assumed (as in a private business) or the ability for one user to decide how much money others will receive (such as when financing from funds). However, the development of the Internet will not be able to ignore the advantages of vertical entities, which are confirmed by the experience of traditional society, so the trend will be directed there one way or another. Especially considering that monetary interest in this issue is not the only one - people can gain valuable experience from collective cooperation and develop social ties. Another important difference of “real” is the presence of a “super-service” in the form of a state, when, using tax and other organizational mechanisms, funds are redistributed to finance such vertical structures, which would not have arisen as a result of the activity of private business alone - the army, fundamental science, etc. Probably, something similar can, in principle, be done within the framework of quite massive Internet services, but a separate article should be devoted to these issues. It should also be added that vertical associations can also be based on ideological motives (for example, on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games. on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games. on religious or political beliefs). Probably, this includes “gaming” moments, for example, role-playing games.
The efficiency of independent content production by authors is lower than in vertically-collective structures; Nevertheless, it can be quite high and largely depends on the characteristics of the author’s audience. Typically, authors are able to produce quality content (including for free) if their audience 1) is relevant, i.e. capable of appreciating; 2) quite numerous; 3) is quite “durable” in the sense that the author’s content is not one-time use, but it can be used in the future for the development of other authors. In this regard, the horizontally-oriented environment of the Internet also has room to develop. I mentioned earlier about the problems of various network formats regarding this aspect: stand-alone copyright sites, apparently, are good only for already established authors with an established audience. Or in combination with the simultaneous use of other resources that have a collective component. Blogs emphasize the author’s beginning, but the author must build his audience himself, and this is a long and specific process, because not every author of good content is also good at shaping his audience. In forums, the audience is usually already formed and the probability of being noticed by it is high, but its volume, as a rule, is quite limited and the problem of relevance often remains relevant. The volume and relevance of the audience on social mediahighly dependent on the voting system. At the same time, as the resource grows in popularity, the composition of its users changes (worsens :)), which means that the voting system must respond to these changes. This is an interesting task and I find it promising, but it is probably not easier than moderating content manually. It almost turns social media into a kind of conventional. As for the "duration", all three of the mentioned formats are not able to provide it - due to positioning and lack of functionality for this. Social databases are good for ensuring the duration and relevance of the audience ., but in their present form they do not give its large volume, and also severely limit the space of author’s self-manifestation. However, the duration and volume are two incompatible things, because no topic can be in the top spotlight of a large audience for a long time. About the same thing can be said about the ratio of volume to relevance - in most cases, an increase in volume means a drop in relevance (this is all the more true the more specialized topics are addressed). But the duration of the audience, most likely, in most cases means its relevance, although the opposite is not necessarily true. Thus, how to find the optimal solution among these contradictory conditions that allows you to reach the largest possible volume, the most relevant and the longest possible audience - this is an urgent problem for the near future.
Previously, I proposed a possible approach to the optimal formation of the author’s audience, but there wasn’t much about stimulating vertical communities. This is not surprising since the monetization scheme was not prescribed. Nevertheless, ideologically, the two indicated directions of development represent one thing - the development of the idea of authorship in its most general understandings, the stimulation of author's self-manifestation, and the identification of the formats for such activity. I would summarize what was said in the concept of copyright spaces - this is a collective environment for individual author’s activity, and the resource environment in general (information, financial, cultural, etc.), and the format (interface) of their interaction.