Comments on: Is participation inequality actually a problem? http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem Picking out patterns in the chaos Mon, 21 May 2012 11:45:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Drodelau http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2630 Drodelau Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:59:49 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2630 I think that it has to do directly with demographics and financial capabilities. There's no magic there, it's pretty straightforward... Don't you think? I think that it has to do directly with demographics and financial capabilities. There’s no magic there, it’s pretty straightforward… Don’t you think?

]]> By: Suw http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2629 Suw Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:57:53 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2629 Lee, that's a very good point indeed. I hadn't thought of it, but you're right that even those who don't actively participate are often passively participating, whether they realise it or not. Those who slightly participate, say by rating something, fall into that 9% of 'engage, but not much' within the 1% - 9% - 90% rule, but the passive 90% still do add something to the data that's collected about their behaviours. Alex, the issue of the 'digital divide', i.e. online vs. offline, is important from a policy standpoint, and this is why I say that social software is not suitable on its own for gathering the information required to make good policy. You have to firstly base policy on evidence, and secondly you have to reach out to those stakeholders who are not either camping out on your doorstep just waiting to talk to you or lobbying you, regardles of whether they are online or offline. Whether offline people are excluded from the online debate entirely, well, that depends on how you measure your numbers. People who are offline at home may be online at work, or via the library, or internet cafes, or even their mobile phone. I don't have the stats to answer your question about who that 40% are. If the policy makers are doing their outreach properly, the digital divide should be irrelevant because they should be talking to everyone, not just the people online. (That's a bloody big 'if' though, and in truth I don't know if it happens.) But for most business sites, I suspect that the offline portion of the population isn't missing out. If someone's not online, they're not buying books from Amazon, and they're not taking part in the review process, but I can't see how that has any sort of a negative impact on them. Whether businesses are missing out by not being able to engage them is another debatable point, but no business targets 100% of the population, so again, maybe not. We also have to remember that some of that offline portion have made a distinct choice to be offline. It's not necessarily about money to buy a computer or get broadband, it's sometimes just that they don't feel that the internet is of use to them. That's a reasonable choice to make, and we need to respect that decision. If anyone has any detailed statistics about who it is who isn't online, i'd be interested in seeing them! Lee, that’s a very good point indeed. I hadn’t thought of it, but you’re right that even those who don’t actively participate are often passively participating, whether they realise it or not. Those who slightly participate, say by rating something, fall into that 9% of ‘engage, but not much’ within the 1% - 9% - 90% rule, but the passive 90% still do add something to the data that’s collected about their behaviours.

Alex, the issue of the ‘digital divide’, i.e. online vs. offline, is important from a policy standpoint, and this is why I say that social software is not suitable on its own for gathering the information required to make good policy. You have to firstly base policy on evidence, and secondly you have to reach out to those stakeholders who are not either camping out on your doorstep just waiting to talk to you or lobbying you, regardles of whether they are online or offline.

Whether offline people are excluded from the online debate entirely, well, that depends on how you measure your numbers. People who are offline at home may be online at work, or via the library, or internet cafes, or even their mobile phone. I don’t have the stats to answer your question about who that 40% are.

If the policy makers are doing their outreach properly, the digital divide should be irrelevant because they should be talking to everyone, not just the people online. (That’s a bloody big ‘if’ though, and in truth I don’t know if it happens.)

But for most business sites, I suspect that the offline portion of the population isn’t missing out. If someone’s not online, they’re not buying books from Amazon, and they’re not taking part in the review process, but I can’t see how that has any sort of a negative impact on them. Whether businesses are missing out by not being able to engage them is another debatable point, but no business targets 100% of the population, so again, maybe not.

We also have to remember that some of that offline portion have made a distinct choice to be offline. It’s not necessarily about money to buy a computer or get broadband, it’s sometimes just that they don’t feel that the internet is of use to them. That’s a reasonable choice to make, and we need to respect that decision.

If anyone has any detailed statistics about who it is who isn’t online, i’d be interested in seeing them!

]]> By: alex http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2628 alex Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:38:54 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2628 Participation inequality does seem a problem when there are 40% of people without access to the internet at all. Would it not be the case that thse people are excluded from the on-line debate entirely, or are we persuaded that their voice is being heard by other means ? Are the 40% who do not have access to the internet also the 40% who do not vote ? Are they also the 40% with the 5% of wealth ? Participation inequality does seem a problem when there are 40% of people without access to the internet at all. Would it not be the case that thse people are excluded from the on-line debate entirely, or are we persuaded that their voice is being heard by other means ?

Are the 40% who do not have access to the internet also the 40% who do not vote ?
Are they also the 40% with the 5% of wealth ?

]]> By: Lee Bryant http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2627 Lee Bryant Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:21:00 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2007/07/06/is-participation-inequality-actually-a-problem#comment-2627 Very thoughtful piece, Suw. It makes a good point, I think. I would argue the term lurker is out of date. These days, non-contributing members are often vital participants, since their reading generates data points that drive things like recommendation systems, for example. There has never been, nor should there be, equality of participation in any community. We are all different and the 1%ers are not unique to the online world. Very thoughtful piece, Suw. It makes a good point, I think.

I would argue the term lurker is out of date. These days, non-contributing members are often vital participants, since their reading generates data points that drive things like recommendation systems, for example.

There has never been, nor should there be, equality of participation in any community. We are all different and the 1%ers are not unique to the online world.

]]>