Autonomía digital y tecnológica

Código e ideas para una internet distribuida

Linkoteca. comunidades digitales

Our mission is to build libraries of high-quality questions and answers, and to foster collaboration within a safe and welcoming community rooted in kindness, cooperation and mutual respect.

Whether you’ve come to ask questions or to generously share what you know, join us in building a community where all people feel welcome and can participate, regardless of expertise or identity.

Pirámide de participantes en una comunidad digital: 90% audiencia, 9% editores, 1% creadores

Here are a few tips to improve the social dynamic across these three groups:

  • Make contributing easy for everyone. Design contribution tools that scale in complexity, giving power tools to power users, while easing usage for light users.
  • Encouraging editing over creating. Blank pages are scary. Create templates, rough examples that can be easily edited, content suggestions, and tons of examples that help eliminate the fear factor.
  • Reward participants. People will give up their first born for a gold star next to their name. Go easy on the rewards, but certainly bake them into the process of participation.
  • Identify both power users and up and coming users. Call out your power users with featured spots on your home page or corporate blog. And don’t forget that if you always call out the top 10 users, the other 90,000 won’t feel like they have a chance. Shine the spotlight on the up and comers too!
La pirámide de la regla del 90, 9, 1 de participación en las comunidades digitales

User participation often more or less follows a 90–9–1 rule:

  • 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don’t contribute).
  • 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
  • 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don’t have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they’re commenting on occurs.

The problem is that the overall system is not representative of average web users. On any given user-participation site, you almost always hear from the same 1% of users, who almost certainly differ from the 90% you never hear from.

We are allowed to map certain facts from reference imagery in news articles etc.. -though this technically depends on where you are from-. You have to

  1. be fairly certain of the position of each object. They can be a few meters off, but you shouldn’t haphazardly map them.

  2. select sources which are reliable and mention them in your changeset sources or alternatively using the source and source:date tags.

  3. make sure you’re using the right imagery and (if any) offset. This can be adjusted in the editor’s layer menu (in iD, this is located in the right sidebar).

  4. be careful if/when touching existing objects. (You may want to contact the local community, if there is one, to discuss whether they want to map the event to begin with); This may change/remove objects on the map 1) ways which are used for routing 2) areas, such as buildings, or POIs which may be of interest for humanitarian aid.
    You will have to use the proper Lifecycle tags (in combination with area=yes where needed).

  5. be sure you know how to map with multipolygons where needed.

  6. as always, look on the wiki for tags and ask the community if you need help mapping.

We are social scientists applying a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to the study of online communities. We seek to understand both how and why some attempts at collaborative production — like Wikipedia and Linux — build large volunteer communities and high quality work products

Our research is particularly focused on how the design of communication and information technologies shape fundamental social outcomes with broad theoretical and practical implications — like an individual’s decision to join a community, contribute to a public good, or a group’s ability to make decisions democratically.

Our research is deeply interdisciplinary, most frequently consists of “big data” quantitative analyses, and lies at the intersection of communication, sociology, and human-computer interaction.

Hill points out that, “Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world. Free/libre open source infrastructure serves as infrastructure that we rely on every time we visit a website. Much of what we love and value about the Internet is because of peer production. Although the term might be unfamiliar to many, peer production is the most important organizational innovation to emerge from the Internet. We should do everything we can to understand its complex dynamics and to help preserve and protect them.”

Contributing to open source for the first time can be scary and a little overwhelming. Perhaps you’re a Code Newbie or maybe you’ve been coding for a while but haven’t found a project you felt comfortable contributing to.

Kent C. Dodds proposed First Timers Only to get new people to make their first contribution. Scott Hanselman blogged about Bringing Kindness Back to Open Source, so it was obvious that we team up and promote these ideas and get more folks involved in open source.

Olivia est développeuse full stack en indépendante. Ce qu’elle préfère c’est travailler avec sa communauté d’une dizaine d’indépendants, spécialisés en front, en UX design et en graphisme, en qui elle a toute confiance.

Mais Olivia se rend compte qu’elle refuse trop souvent des projets qui demandent des compétences que sa communauté n’a pas, parce qu’elle n’aime pas recruter et qu’elle ne sait pas à qui à faire confiance. Pire, elle et d’autres membres de sa communauté se retrouvent parfois avec trop peu de boulot.

Elle s’est branchée sur Hubl et y a invité sa communauté. Ils se servent du chat pour communiquer, et en se connectant à douze autres communautés qu’elle connaît bien, elle a désormais accès à leurs offres de mission et à leurs annuaires de profil. Ça lui permet de trouver des projets intéressants et des indépendants de confiance avec qui les réaliser.

In late 2018, Richard D. Bartlett published a proposal to start a «microsolidarity» community in Western Europe — a small group of people supporting each other to do more meaningful work.

Reader reactions prompted him to start this website, to collect resources for the co-development of multiple such communities.

Microsolidarity is a set of practices for mutual support between peers. These methods bring us out of individualism and into a more relational way of being.

Most of this support happens in a Crew: a small group up to about 8 people growing trust in each other through emotional & economic reciprocity. Crews are always designed for intimacy, and may also produce an output (e.g. a software product or an activist campaign).

The Congregation is a space for Crews to co-develop in the company of other Crews. Congregations have less than a few hundred people, so they can be primarily governed through trust and dialogue.

Many Congregations could form an Assembly.

Open Source projects would benefit from this level of transparency and that giving credit directly into the commit message makes it very transferable.

With this level of transparency, we can start to study how our ecosystem actually works; we can see which companies contribute back code and how much, we can see how much of the Drupal project is volunteer driven, we can better identify potential conflicts of interest, and more. But most of all, we can provide credit where credit is due and provide meaningful incentives for organizations to contribute back to Drupal. I believe this could provide a really important step in making Drupal core development more scalable.

The Community Casnvas

A framework to help you build meaningful communities.

For each of the 17 themes, we have identified a set of questions that will help find the right answers for your own community. We provide worksheets to make the questions actionable.

While the Canvas doesn’t give answers, we provide further background for each of the 17 themes, based on our observations and feedback from leading community builders. In future versions we’re going to include case studies for each theme.

Intenta que tus intervenciones sean breves. Los e-mails largos dan la impresión de que eres la autoridad y envían una señal de que te apropias del tema. También generan largas cadenas de e-mails que hacen aún más difícil que otras puedan ponerse al día.

Si ya has intervenido no vuelves a hacerlo a menos que simplemente estés aclarado tu propia opinión, hasta que otras hayan tenido una oportunidad de intervenir.

Ten en cuenta el género. Es un hecho muy triste que tanto hombres como mujeres (incluso feministas) perciban las voces masculinas como más autorizadas que las de las mujeres.

Date cuenta de cómo la comunicación reproduce relaciones de poder en el grupo.

Recuerda que tener más experiencia (o pensar que la tienes) no te confiere automáticamente más autoridad.

En el e-mail la gente que “llega tarde a la fiesta” a menudo siente que el consenso ya ha sido alcanzado o que se han perdido la parte de la discusión en la que podían realizar intervenciones útiles.

Warnock’s Dilemma is the situation described by Bryan Warnock in an August 2000 post to a Usenet group:

«The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:

‘The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There’s nothing more to say except «Yeah, what he said.»
‘The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
‘No one read the post, for whatever reason.
‘No one understood the post, but won’t ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
‘No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.»

Decision Protocol: Consensus

For formal decisions, Enspiral uses consensus decision-making, a methodology with a specific meaning and practice. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement or engagement from everyone on all decisions. The key concept is consent (you can live with it), which is distinct from agreement (it’s your preference or first choice).

Making Formal Decisions

Anyone can propose a formal decision at any time. We seek open, transparent decision-making and strive to enable the people who are affected by a decision to participate as fully as possible in making it. Enspiral tries to make decisions with the widest possible circle of participants, while recognising the necessity and wisdom of delegating responsibility for certain decisions.

Formal decisions are needed for the following areas (some with the whole network, some with a subset of people or by a process which has been delegated by an Agreement).

Agreements – creating new rules about how Enspiral works
Brand – using the Enspiral logo and identity publicly
Money – spending collective funds or for actions that impact our financial outlook
Tools & Processes – how the network as a whole will work and communicate
Relationships – commitments as a network with individuals or entities (such as invitations to membership, appointing directors, MOUs with ventures or other entities)
Buy-in & Awareness – when seeking a shared sense of ownership and support from the network as a whole

The idea of lazy consensus can basically be described as: “Silence is consent”1). It is used as a decision making tool in larger groups of individuals.

The lazy consensus is a very effective tool to speed up development processes, may it be the development of OSS in an online community or the implementation of a new project step in a company. It gives every group member the equal chance to object, if necessary.

Since silence is considered to be consent, it is not obvious, how many members of the respective group have even seen the post, or read the article, or learned about the idea in question (known as Warnock’s Dilemma). The concept of the lazy consensus requires an active community in order to receive enough interest and, if necessary, adequate critical objections.

When using the lazy consensus, there is also a certain risk of receiving decisive objections at an advanced state of the project, implementation, or development. This might cause some turbulence that could have been avoided with another decision taking process.

En informática, bus Factor o (Factor Autobús) es un término usado en proyectos de desarrollo de software, que alude a una gran cantidad de información vital de un proyecto de software limitada solamente a uno o unos pocos desarrolladores, impidiendo la continuación del proyecto en el hipotético caso de que estos desarrolladores clave sean atropellados por un autobús.

It’s easier for a successful volunteer Free Software project to get money than it is to decide how to spend it. While paying developers is easy, it can carry unintended negative consequences. This essay explores problems and benefits of paying developers in volunteer free and open source projects and surveys strategies that projects have used to successfully finance development while maintaining their volunteer nature.

quizás haya que ir dando por concluida la famosa regla del “ Don’t feed the troll”. Ya sabemos que Twitter (especialmente ésta) es un lugar tendente al troleo y a los zascas. Desconozco si es la configuración de la herramienta o si un devenir social. Pero es así.

he podido darme el lujo de usar la educación y la pedagogía extremas porque no sufro esto non-stop. Puedo imaginarme a una persona rendida ante tanto odio y decidiendo luchar en vez de intentar convencer a nadie a través de la palabra.

En lo que no me cabe duda es que la polarización puede ser neutralizada así. Hubo varias personas que tras haberme hablado mal terminaron disculpándose por ello tras ver que yo solo contestaba de forma educada. Por eso creo que necesitamos defender la radicalidad de la no-violencia. Necesitamos generar entornos digitales habitables que permitan una discordia educada.

cuando se hace un cambio en la ciudad los ciudadanos ven lo que se les quita, no lo que van a ganar. con cambios temporales en los espacios se puede mostrar lo que podría ser un espacio tras el cambio.

sobre inclusividad:
+ un espacio en el que todos pueden participar pero no es para todos.
+ diseñar un espacio para todos bloquea procesos porque es casi imposible, o genera espacios vacíos por ser demasiado genéricos o neutros

espacio situado:
partir de lo que hay

aportar conocimiento situado:
cuando se participa en un proceso se puede ir a representar o defender una institución o un colectivo una bandera. también se puede venir como ciudadano a compartir conocimiento situado, el conocimiento generado desde el contexto del que viene.

autonomía convergente
no pretender que cualquiera tiene que sumarse a nuestro proceso (incluso si eres la administración)
no pretender que todo el mundo actúe desde el mismo lugar, de la misma manera
permitir que haya autonomías

para que estas autonomías converjan tiene que haber dos cosas:
+ objetivo común
+ puntos de encuentro en el proceso

cuanto más potente es un proceso, más se escorará hacia la periferia. cuanto más potente, más se desarrolla un imaginario específico que deja fuera a un mayor número de personas

si hablas del elefante, ya nadie puede dejar de pensar en el elefante. has perdido