(no subject)
I'm a wee bit miffed at the moment. I just received the minutes from a core group meeting seeking to establish a community of practice within the faculty. We viewed the website at this meeting, which has space for blogs among other things. I questioned whether there would be the possibility of limiting the readers of any particular blog post (kinda like the friendslock on LJ). This was to allow people to slowly appropriate the technology, like presenting to a few colleagues rather than having to stand on a stage before the whole world. It was felt by the majority that this would not be a good thing. The whole community needs to be open. There is no periphery, only the centre. If you want to participate, get right into the centre. Don't hang about the edges, dive in, because, ya know, we're all the same!
So I have to question why there was the need for someone who understands virtual communities at the meeting if their advice was given no value. Why seek me out for my input then disregard it?
Ptooey!
So I have to question why there was the need for someone who understands virtual communities at the meeting if their advice was given no value. Why seek me out for my input then disregard it?
Ptooey!