You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘inclusion’ tag.
I attended an unconference in the University of Helsinki on Thursday 27.10.2011. One of the themes discussed was networking and tools available.
With today’s cheap and flexible tools it’s often enough to produce meaningful cooperation if only there is a common interest available.
You need to sit at the table to be counted in
In one of the sessions we heard examples how staff in many universities had recently found Yammer increasingly useful tool in their internal communication.
We agreed to make a joint network in Yammer for Finnish universities and polytechnics*, to help likeminded people find each other cross the organizational boarders.
Afterwards I wondered if polytechnics would have been included in the new network, if me and my colleague as only representatives from polytechnics would not have been there and participated in the discussion. I doubt it.
* polytechnic = university of applied sciences – the latter is preferred by most of the schools
—————
Inspired by or related to:
The unconference in question “Konfabulaari VI”
Forbes: Sheryl Sandberg On Why Women Need To “Sit At The Table”
Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland: Polytechnics, Universities
—————-
Edited 2.12.2011: Statistics on Google url shortener goo.gl/ciSwb+
Many people put high value to the Circles feature in Google+, because that helps them separate their different audiences. And not all of them are marketers after cheap channels for targeted ads.
Inbound vs. outbound
For me it’s not so much about choosing for whom I wish to speak to, but rather from whom I wish to hear from. It’s more about filtering the inbound stream, not the outbound.
I’ve seen already one comment about a “spam follower” also in Google+, but the comment was without any elaboration as to why the following was interpreted as spammy (see my previous post “Spamming Evolves – To Block Or Report On Twitter?“).
Sending vs. receiving
One recent blog comment* had an idea about how Circles help with communicating in different languages separately. This sounded good at first, but soon my thoughts went along on another path. I realized I’d like to be in control more as a message receiver, not so much as a sender.
As a sender, I’ll probably post in Google+ mostly in public (just like I’m used to do in Twitter) and leave it up to readers to filter their stream as they feel fit.
As a receiver, I could use the circles for e.g. language learning purposes: if I’d like to brush up my Chinese, I could check my Chinese circle. I could also check my company circle to hear what my colleagues have on their mind.
Inclusion vs. Exclusion
I wouldn’t like to be filtered out just because the writer didn’t know that I can Zulu language and left me out of his Zulu circle. But I understand, that there are still countless other reasons why I could be filtered out.
Private separation vs. public serendipity
I welcome new ways to filter the information stream. The separation process may well be private like with Google+ Circles (people don’t know each others circles), even though I already got used to public Twitter lists.
I also welcome public spaces, because I wish to leave the door wide open for serendipity. After all, you never know who might be interested about your thoughts.
——————
Inspired by
* Six Pixels of Separation by Twist Image and Mitch Joel: The Social/Anti-Social Network
——————
Edited 2.12.2011: Statistics on Google url shortener goo.gl/uBv8d+
On Second Thought 