Why contribute online ?

By    John Garner on  Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Summary: From a link on boing boing I came across an article on citimedia's blog. The post covers a recent study from Harvard University called "The Hype vs. Reality vs. What People Value: Emerging Collaborative News Models and the Future of News". Even though the study itself is not a short blog post it is really […]

From a link on boing boing I came across an article on citimedia's blog. The post covers a recent study from Harvard University called "The Hype vs. Reality vs. What People Value: Emerging Collaborative News Models and the Future of News". Even though the study itself is not a short blog post it is really interesting and worth reading if you have the time.

Some interesting trends that are documented about participants :
  • The will to share, is a big motivator, few wish to become journalists
  • A community to plug into, where trying things as a group means things can be tried and tested far quicker
  • More women than men vocalised the desire to find people with similar interests
  • A feel good factor and giving back factor is often cited
These five elements are cited in Citimedia's blog by particpants as reasons why they do not participate in online communities :
  • Busy, haven't got the time
  • Not perfect communities with low value exchanges
  • Often confronted with technical issues
  • User interfaces are hard to understand/use
  • Lurkers that only want to 'listen' that don't feel they can contribute

There are some interesting Technorati graphs used in the survey that illustrate the evolution of the blog phenomenon. Other graphs illustrate the impact of world events on the quantity of posts/articles at these specific dates.

Article written by  John Garner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Check out the most recent posts from the blog: 
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
The ONHT Framework for Intermediate users

This Intermediate Guide for the ONHT (Objective, Needs, How, Trajectory) Framework transforms you from someone who uses GenAI into someone who thinks with GenAI by adding the missing cognitive functions that current GenAI lacks. The framework works through three critical pillars – Empathy (understanding all stakeholders), Critical Thinking (challenging assumptions), and Human in the Loop (active partnership). Master these patterns and you'll be solving complex problems others can't even approach, becoming indispensable by designing interactions that produce exceptional results rather than just functional outputs.

Read More
Monday, June 16, 2025
The ONHT Framework: Beginners Guide

Stop getting generic AI responses. Learn the four-letter framework that transforms vague requests into precise results. The ONHT framework: Objective (what problem you're solving), Needs (key information that matters), How (the thinking approach), and Trajectory (clear steps to the answer), teaches you to think WITH AI, not through it, turning "analyse customer feedback" into board-ready insights. Real examples show how adding context and structure gets you from Level 1 basics to Level 3 mastery, where AI delivers exactly what you need.
The difference? Knowing how to ask.

Read More
Sunday, June 15, 2025
The ONHT Framework: GenAI Prompting Solutions That Actually Work for People

GenAI tools are transforming work, but most people get poor results because they don't understand how to communicate with AI built on structured data. This guide is a series of articles that teaches the ONHT framework—a systematic approach to prompting that transforms vague requests into exceptional outputs by focusing on Objectives (what problem), Needs (what information), How (thinking approach), and Trajectory (path to solution). Master this framework and develop an expert mindset grounded in human-in-the-loop thinking, critical analysis, and empathy, and you'll excel with any AI tool, at any company, in any role.

Read More
Sunday, September 24, 2023
The reliability & accuracy of GenAI

I question the reliability and accuracy of Generative AI (GenAI) in enterprise scenarios, particularly when faced with adversarial questions, highlighting that current Large Language Models (LLMs) may be data-rich but lack in reasoning and causality. I would call for a more balanced approach to AI adoption in cases of assisting users, requiring supervision, and the need for better LLM models that can be trusted, learn, and reason.

Read More
crossmenuarrow-down