Difference between revisions of "Weblog/PotentialPosts/Users"

Line 2: Line 2:
 
...to calling people users.
 
...to calling people users.
  
We are certainly not the first to publicly ask this question. But why do so many sites call their contributors users? User are passive. Users are not contributors, they are passive. The title does little to convey the sense of ownership that the creators of today's community-curated online works feel. We were ecstatic we found [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/123/an-alternative-term-for-user-generated-content Brianna Laugher's efforts] at exploring pieces of the problem. Ted Ernst then opined about it on the [http://blog.aboutus.org/2008/08/28/user-generated-content-community-curated-works/ AboutUs Weblog] back in August.
+
We are certainly not the first to publicly ask this question. But why do so many sites call their contributors users? User are passive. Users are not contributors, they are passive. The title does little to convey the sense of ownership that the creators of today's community-curated online works feel.
  
This rejection of "users" definitely seems to have struck a cord with many folks. Brianna followed up with  [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/137/community-curated-works-ccw Community-curated works (CCW)], Josh Bancroft joined the fray with [http://www.tinyscreenfuls.com/2008/08/i-hate-the-term-user-generated-content-how-about-community-curated-works-instead/ I Hate the Term “User Generated Content”. How About “Community-Curated Works” Instead?] and this month, David Pogue  of the New York Times recently lambasted it in his list of [http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/tech-terms-to-avoid/ Tech Terms to Avoid].
+
We were ecstatic we found [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/123/an-alternative-term-for-user-generated-content Brianna Laugher's efforts] at exploring pieces of the problem. Ted Ernst then opined about it on the [http://blog.aboutus.org/2008/08/28/user-generated-content-community-curated-works/ AboutUs Weblog] back in August.
  
It is hard to imagine for most tech people to think that user is anything but a good term - it is for whom they do their work for. This industry grew up around these engineers - they drove it, so obviously it is their legacy language that still is common, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing.
+
This rejection of "users" definitely seems to have struck a cord with many folks. Brianna followed up with  [http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/137/community-curated-works-ccw Community-curated works (CCW)], Josh Bancroft joined the fray with [http://www.tinyscreenfuls.com/2008/08/i-hate-the-term-user-generated-content-how-about-community-curated-works-instead/ I Hate the Term “User Generated Content”. How About “Community-Curated Works” Instead?] and this month, David Pogue of the New York Times recently lambasted it in his list of [http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/tech-terms-to-avoid/ Tech Terms to Avoid]. He was quick to point out that the only other industry than tech to call people users is the drug trade.
  
There are smart people out there [http://id-o.de/2008/09/26/write-and-build-for-humans/ User Centered Strategy] being one of them - saying and posting with clearly opposing understandings of the issue.
+
Now, the choice of label for online citizens was a haphazard one. Like so much else of Internet culture, it seems to have bubbled up in to general usage from within the backend of the tech world, engineers and developers. While "user" is a rather functional and appropriate word in that context, it is hardly applicable to the participatory world of Web 2.0
 +
 
 +
There are smart people out there, [http://id-o.de/2008/09/26/write-and-build-for-humans/ User Centered Strategy] being one of them saying and posting with clearly opposing understandings of the issue.
  
 
The subject [http://metatalk.metafilter.com/16648/Users-are-people-too gets some meta talk on Metafilter: Users are people too] about changing it on their site.
 
The subject [http://metatalk.metafilter.com/16648/Users-are-people-too gets some meta talk on Metafilter: Users are people too] about changing it on their site.

Revision as of 00:42, 22 October 2008

Just Say No! ...to calling people users.

We are certainly not the first to publicly ask this question. But why do so many sites call their contributors users? User are passive. Users are not contributors, they are passive. The title does little to convey the sense of ownership that the creators of today's community-curated online works feel.

We were ecstatic we found Brianna Laugher's efforts at exploring pieces of the problem. Ted Ernst then opined about it on the AboutUs Weblog back in August.

This rejection of "users" definitely seems to have struck a cord with many folks. Brianna followed up with Community-curated works (CCW), Josh Bancroft joined the fray with I Hate the Term “User Generated Content”. How About “Community-Curated Works” Instead? and this month, David Pogue of the New York Times recently lambasted it in his list of Tech Terms to Avoid. He was quick to point out that the only other industry than tech to call people users is the drug trade.

Now, the choice of label for online citizens was a haphazard one. Like so much else of Internet culture, it seems to have bubbled up in to general usage from within the backend of the tech world, engineers and developers. While "user" is a rather functional and appropriate word in that context, it is hardly applicable to the participatory world of Web 2.0

There are smart people out there, User Centered Strategy being one of them saying and posting with clearly opposing understandings of the issue.

The subject gets some meta talk on Metafilter: Users are people too about changing it on their site.

In the spirit of the Typo Eradication Advancement League which I found through New York Post: Weird But True (and the article was deleted at Wikipedia for not being notable.) and Learning By Doing: I made several edits to Vidoop.com's about us page, as if it where a wiki (wouldn't it be great if the whole web was a wiki... wait, that is what we are doing here at AboutUs!) and changed the way their page would read if they removed the "User" language - here is the change and here is the diff. (looks like the page changed a bit, but the writing is similar)

A challenge to, my own company AboutUs.org, Metafilter, Vidoop - really any other Portland based technology company - let's start the language / people revolution here.

LinkLanguage is important to me. It is hard that my own company still uses the User Namespace like Wikipedia and not like wikiHow, which has it but hides it.



Retrieved from "http://aboutus.com/index.php?title=Weblog/PotentialPosts/Users&oldid=16781929"