For Conversations, There’s (Still) No Place Like The WELL
Over on Om Malik’s always-informative GigaOM site, staff writer Brigid Gaffkin has written a short-but-sweet piece on Google.org Director Dr. Larry Brilliant and The WELL.
The WELL (i.e., Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) is the groundbreaking online community project founded by Brilliant with techno-utopian entrepreneur and free spirit Stewart Brand in 1985.
Ultimately, Larry Brilliant proves that he’s still…well, brilliant.
Although many younger Millennials/Digital Natives may be less familiar with it, The WELL was the original online community/social media destination that was thriving long before any of us ever called any of this stuff “social media.”
I had the privilege of working for The WELL’s original professional services group, WELLEngaged (now Mzinga) in the mid-1990’s.
So, who cares about The WELL? You. Or, if you’re social media professional, you should.
Without The WELL, there would never have been a Facebook or a Twitter. Maybe an AOL…just maybe.
The WELL is to social media what Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly are to rock ‘n roll: there from the beginning. And, unlike those iconic fugures, The WELL is still alive and kicking, too.
For those who’d like to learn more, friend Katy Hafner’s groundbreaking WIRED article is as brisk and gut-wrenching a read now as it was when it was first published over 10 years ago:
The Epic Saga of The Well
The World’s Most Influential Online Community (And It’s Not AOL)
Technorati
____________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Over on Mashable, there’s an engaging article by Mark Drapeau (and a lively comment stream) on possible alternatives to the rapidly-aging “2.0″ cliché, and some thoughts about what will – or at least might – succeed it.
It’s important to realize that the particular exchange over at Mashable is specifically about language and what we should call things, rather that the specifics of those things themselves.
Personally, I’m all for a new, cliché-free naming convention for all of this 2.0 business. Or, at the very least, a new set of clichés to replace the ones we’re using now.
Besides, if we continue with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 metaphor, (one that’s been borrowed from software development), there will be those who will be unable to resist the temptation to take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, i.e., incremental upgrades…with predictably illogical – or at least impractical results. After all, if we’re continually improving it, shouldn’t government 2.0 naturally become 2.1, 2.2 and beyond? This, in turn, begs some further questions:
Since this morning, I’ve been especially partial to this gentlemen’s coinage: WeGov.
Other ideas abound: Activist Kevin Bondelli (possibly the Gen-Y/millenial’s successor to Joe Trippi), prefers User-Generated Government.
While my inner geek might pine for Quantum Government, NanoGov or similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we’re going to create meaningful slogans and coinages for everyone’s use that represent at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let’s keep ‘em short, sweet and simple.
Ultimately, the particular terminology that ultimately gains traction to describe citizen-centric, responsive government at every level pales in importance, compared to the people and policies – and, yes, the social technologies necessary to undergird it. We’ve only just begun.
More to come…