Dare to challenge and balance the Reader's digest syndrom
We can feel a natural push for "Short stories" and "Extracts". Somehow useful, although quite drying. I believe we need to manage such paradox and propose real solutions to avoid the "Keep It Simple and Stupid" drifting effect. Our society (social as much as corporate) is already reducing its thinking scope and time horizon. It is a very risky combination. Time is precious but "no time" is useless. It is too easy to reduce ambition and end up into "twitts" and a "Cut and Paste" culture. So, here is a proposal : 1.Drafts should be welcomed for others to build on. : No need to wait for the ready to publish quality level. 2.Long stories should be encouraged, with a call for contribution from others to extract the key ideas. 3.Drafts + Long stories, to be enriched by the collective intelligence effort (not limited to comments but real co-development addition), should not be reduced into key ideas, but a data mining for innovative leads.
You're welcome Michele.
Drilling down the proposal #2 : I am OK to play both roles (and mirror) : that is to say I can invest efforts to propose detailed Hacks and I would appreciate a lot any MIXers that will invest time on their end and give a shot at providing an extract.
Not to replace the original piece but give an alternate access on a "summary/Digest" or more interesting to myself just a specific extract that sounds appealing or puzzling enough to engage the community about different understanding or questioning.
"Mirror" means that I commit to take time to do the same for contributors proposing bold ideas and open-minded enough to bare with such bouncing back (different from a typical feed-back).
- Log in to post comments
Hi Frederic, many thanks for your very thoughtful comments--we're glad to see you push us to keep the "depth" level of the contributions high, while at the same time making contribution easier--and potentially more collaborate--than it is right now.
thanks again
Michele
- Log in to post comments
One idea that I keep seeing on this hackathon is that perhaps we can keep the depth level of *key* contributions high, meaning, perhaps if we start with mini hacks or stories that garner enough interest, we encourage (as a community) the people who contributed those stories and hacks to go even deeper--either on their own, or in conjunction with other members of the community who volunteer to help them. That way we go deep on the best and most interesting ideas to the community, while allowing the short form versions to serve as a filter showing us whether more detail (and more effort to produce it) is a good use of time.
- Log in to post comments
I fully subscribe Chris.
Moving from single contributors, to co-authors, then to community outputs would be a live demo of the fundamentals levers that most of the posts refer to, something around co-operative intelligence and organization/economy of cross-contribution.
Starting with drafts or shorts are one way to go.
We need in this case to make the "Call to community" for building up a very clear mention, or even better a new category.
So not to be understood as a classical executive synthesis.
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.