[FM Discuss] the presentation

[Anne Gentle]

I think many people are fine with the project or cause getting the attention
or attribution. A project's reputation can be improved with good doc, and
that goal is motivation enough for many.

Some individuals are motivated by altruism - merely being thanked for
helping is enough. Especially writers who aren't accustomed to getting
attribution anyway, or those don't consider themselves to be "writers"
(thinking of Andy's research in community-generated content).

There's plenty of room in the world for different content models, so I don't
think yours is radical but certainly can find (and has found!) an
under-served niche. Have you discovered the next idea, as big as the Haynes
manuals (Do-It-Yourself auto repair manuals)? Perhaps. :)
Anne

 *Anne Gentle*
annegentle at justwriteclick.com my blog <http://justwriteclick.com> | my
book<http://xmlpress.net/publications/conversation-community/>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/annegentle> |
del.icio.us<http://del.icio.us/annegentle>|
Twitter <http://twitter.com/annegentle>



On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:20 PM, adam hyde <adam at flossmanuals.net> wrote:

> hey
>
> thanks for the good feedback and comments :)
>
> do you really think taking away attribution is radical? I think in many
> ways some of the FM projects have asked for this. For example, the
> contributors of the CiviCRM manual, the organisers of the Open
> Translation Tools manual, and the Mozilla Foundation doc crew (Sumo) who
> maintain the Firefox manual have all asked not to have individual
> attribution...it seems they are happy with this (noting : in each case
> didn't want to remove the individual attribution because it was
> technically a hassle since FM by default preserves individual
> attribution)
>
> adam
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 14:01 -0400, Andy Oram wrote:
> > Fascinating article, and a strong viewpoint I didn't notice before in
> what you've said, Adam. When it's ready for public viewing, I'll point the
> O'Reilly editors to the article. Yes, as a traditional publisher we're
> threatened. But we aren't afraid of being threatened; we want to know what's
> out there.
> >
> > I do have two immediate reactions.
> >
> > First, regarding attribution. The idea of throwing attribution out of the
> window is about the most radical idea I've seen in the space of managing
> creativity. Even Eben Moglen thinks attribution is crucial. But sure, if you
> tell people to be selfless, to mix their input freely with other people's
> input, and to let it go anywhere without tracing it, content will be much
> more fluid--basically no friction.
> >
> > Yet the desire to get credit (the need for reputation) is one of the
> strongest human drives, and most authors care more about it than the money.
> I once wrote an article that didn't have my byline on it, but I still did it
> more for reputation than money. Basically, the people whom I wanted to know
> about my work and respect me for it knew about it, and I didn't care about
> the wider public.
> >
> > To some extent, simple web searches can turn up the source for
> documents--but many people won't bother to do those searches, and if it
> travels to some place on the other side of the globe (particularly in
> translation) the authors will feel deprived of attribution.
> >
> > Second point: quality, an issue we come back to again and again. Note
> that FLOSS Manuals has two versions of each document, one for the Read
> section and one for the Write section. Ironically, FM plays a gatekeeper
> role, giving visitors some assurance that the Read version is stable and has
> been checked for accuracy. That's the publisher's role. One could substitute
> a rating system (which is what Google does merely by page ranking), but the
> web has not matured to the point where that's really trustworthy.
> >
> > By the way, I'm not sure you need authors as stars to elevate the role of
> the publisher. If I go out seeking mushrooms, the mushrooms are not famous
> and haven't built up a reputation. I still separate the ones that taste good
> from the ones that poison me.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "adam hyde" <adam at flossmanuals.net>
> > To: "floss" <discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:38:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> > Subject: [FM Discuss] the presentation
> >
> > so...i wanted to write a short essay to get my thoughts clear on the
> > presentation...so here it is...
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Experiences in Open Publishing
> > =====
> >
> > ...
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> > http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
> --
> Adam Hyde
> Founder FLOSS Manuals
> German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
> Email : adam at flossmanuals.net
> irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
>
> "Free manuals for free software"
> http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20090827/3d4a5fff/attachment-0001.htm>