Again, I’m late to the discursive party, but what I was thinking during the Social Software outburst a week or two ago closely resembles what Phil Windley and Mitch Ratcliffe have since said. A weighty portion of the rationale for identifying various applications and practices under the rubric of “social software” involves learning to think about what these have in common, what they make possible, how they might converge (and diverge) in their future functions. Some people involved in developing the category description will profit from what results, and to that extent we justifiably keep alert for [groundless] hype — but many other interested parties aren’t lining their pockets, they’re firing their neurons in ways that may engender innovative new tools and innovative uses for old tools, from which everyone benefits. If that’s “hype,” I can live with it. If Liz and Seb are involved, I’ll tend to doubt that they’re shilling for anyone (and I say this not to suggest that I have reason to doubt the integrity of Clay, Ross, and Jessica).
Posted by AKMA at May 3, 2003 12:04 PM | TrackBack