Originally posted by Springer
First and Foremost... CONGRATULATIONS Jak!
You are a Scholar and a WINNER.
Additional accolades and personal expressions of sheer AWE go out to our Tee Shirt winners as well. This thread is a prime example of the type of
collaboration that TAN seeks to present to the WORLD. The CROWD is always "smarter" than the individual.
Next, let me say that the little "hint" I gave about "more than the one" (paraphrased for your utter confusion of course) is VERY applicable to
the spheres as well.
Thank you, Springer -- from all of us
Hmmm...In the pdsd-induced (***see note) sleep-walking post I wrote
about an hour before yours (above), I mentioned "Crowd power",
because my understanding is that it is the “crowd” of the new “ecosystem” that will determine content. I gave an example or two of where this
kind of user- (ie “crowd-”) based system would be beneficial in improving the relevance and hence the value of content…
Deriving from this -- and I apologise to everyone who has been working so hard on this -- but I don’t agree that ATS/TAN has to occupy the centre
sphere in the image. It just seems to me that as all of the depicted components of the image effectively gravitate around the center one and have
two-way interaction with it, then the centre has to contain that which drives the new vision -- namely, the pool/crowd/group of users (and creators)
without whom the entire thing is irrelevant. The smaller spheres feed into the larger one, allowing it to maintain and grow itself and feed back to
all the smaller ones. But without a centre -- a "core" or a "heart", the ecosystem will wither and die, for the centre is effectively its life
energy source -- much in the same way as the sun is for us. Take away the sun's energy and all our efforts and interactions will be for nothing.
(True, it's a crummy analogy because we don't directly feed back to the sun but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.)
You and others have told us that this thing is bigger than ATS/TAN and its members, so for me, ATS/TAN is not the centre. It’s a vital component but
I think we need to look beyond ourselves as we are here (ie within ATS/TAN). Were these changes to be unveiled on Nov 5th only
ATS/TAN and its present or future membership, it would be a different story -- but “a continually evolving self-feeding content creation, ideation,
and publishing ecosystem” is far broader in scope.
This site has around 120,000 members, give or take 10k. That’s pretty impressive. But the WWW (not just “internet” -- WWW) has a
“membership” of users/contributors that must, even at a very conservative estimate, run at something over 20% of the world’s population, giving
it something like 1,200,000,000 users at least…meaning that we here form only about 0.0001% of that user base if my morning maths is not completely
up the spout.
True, we members here may provide a core group and foundation to grow this ecosystem, and so we as individuals form part of its core, but not merely
within our personae as ATS/TAN members. But considering the 1.2 billion plus
and growing user/contributor base that exists, if this new vision
will allow the ATS/TAN organization and its partners
to tap into that huge pool and grow a new “ecosystem” from it, by offering them
something that is simply far better and far in advance of anything else they can access, use, contribute to and ideate from, then the implications are
Sooo…that’s why I think the “crowd” should take the centre.
That’s my take on it this grey October morning before my second cup of coffee…I hope I’ve not upset too many people.
*** Note: "pdsd" is "post-dollnean stress disorder"
EDITED to add: Crakeur said that the words in spheres numbered 1,3,4,5, & 8 are correct. This is valuable input -- but I don't follow the assumption
that sphere number one is the centre sphere. Maybe it's my different (ie warped
) thinking, but to me, number one would be at the top. The centre
sphere is the
centre and unique in respect of its size and that location, so it doesn't need a number to identify it. It's the focus. Harking
back to my crummy "sun" analogy above, what number is our planet? Third rock from the sun...
What number is the sun, then?
Okay, the sphere diagram is about an evolving ecosystem, not a solar system. (I admitted it was a poor analogy.) But all the same, I hope I've made
my point, even if no-one else agrees with me.
However, my own assumptions in respect of numbering versus physical positioning could be equally wrong. Therefore, while all the other spheres need
some kind of formalized system to identify them, it might be more effective to see if Crakeur, SO or Springer will spring the info about which other
spheres are correctly labeled based upon their colours. They are all uniquely coloured, so even a confirmation of two of them would assist in
assigning positions to all which have been allowed as correctly "interpreted".
I think it's not unreasonable to assume that their varied colours are intended to aid in their identification. Sure, the colours could have symbolic
relevance (and I posted about colour symbolism several days ago in this regard), but it's a stretch to apply such symbolism to all of them, so why
not make use of this aspect on their uniqueness?
So -- I ask two questions: is the centre sphere numbered 1? If "yes" my own assumptions are shot to pieces
. But if "no", what colour is
number one, and what colours are the other "confirmed" spheres?
Sorry if I seem crabby this morning, everyone.
I am not a "morning person".
[edit on 30-10-2007 by JustMike]