community awards

The Webby Awards were announced tonight and i know folks are currently in Linz trying to narrow down the Ars Electronica Prix. Both groups have an award for best community and i’ve found this to be exceptionally problematic for my own processing.

– Is the nomination supposed to focus on the site, its design, its intention, etc. or the resultant community?
– Who is being nominated? The creator or the community? What if the community hates the creator?
– What practice is being validated? The expected one or the successful one? What if the successful one is subversive?
– How valuable are communities that transcend the site? Do you count the transcendence?
– How do you address invisible communities whose only proof of existence is their end-result?

Let me couch this in how i feel about the Webby Award nominees for community:

– FictionAlley (a fan fiction site). The site is not particularly innovative, but the practice of fan fiction is and the community that has evolved through that practice and have become situated at that site is mindblowing.

– Friendster. The technology is somewhat innovative, but what is impressive is how much everday communities transcended geography to make a community out of the site and how new communities (ahem, Fakesters) emerged even amidst their presence being despised.

– LiveJournal. The structure of journaling with a community, for a community has been so powerful for different groups, so stunningly powerful. In many ways, this is a true community site – the result of design that is meant to support the community that already exists there and to help that community take things to the next level.

– SuicideGirls. A community has formed amongst these girls that has transcended the site that supposedly brings them together. You see them on Friendster, on LJ, on other sites. There’s a layered community – that of the girls and that of their audience. What’s truly innovative about SG is not its porn component but how a noticeable community can make the site have so much additional sex appeal.

– Wikipedia. Here’s a site where most participants do not know one another at all. The tool is simple. But a ghost community with shared notions of activity and goal works to produce a masterpiece. The masterpiece only hints at the underlying invisible community and its power and motivation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 thoughts on “community awards

  1. Many-to-Many

    danah on community awards

    danah has a set of questions about awards for ‘community sites’ for the Webby Awards and Ars Electronica:- Is the nomination supposed to focus on the site, its design, its intention, etc. or the resultant community? – Who is being…

  2. Many-to-Many

    danah on community awards

    danah has a set of questions about awards for ‘community sites’ for the Webby Awards and Ars Electronica:- Is the nomination supposed to focus on the site, its design, its intention, etc. or the resultant community? – Who is being…

  3. Many-to-Many

    danah on community awards

    danah has a set of questions about awards for ‘community sites’ for the Webby Awards and Ars Electronica:- Is the nomination supposed to focus on the site, its design, its intention, etc. or the resultant community? – Who is being…

  4. Jeff

    as someone who studies primarily small community sites, i have always been disappointed with the way that the “community” has been interpereted. some truly dynamic communities tend to get left out of competitions like this, simply becuase they are small. but they’re small by design.

  5. zephoria

    Honestly, it depends on the competition. The issue is often not whether or not they are small, but whether or not they are known. In the case of the Webbies, there’s a request for submissions by the panel. In the case of Ars, there’s a demand for submissions by Ars itself. The next step is to be able to defend the community in the panel, which basically means that the community needs to articulate why it’s amazing to the panel.

    With the Webbies, i’d bet that most readers here know four of the five sites. The fifth one is probably unknown, as it was to the committee, but information about it was shared with the panel that was quite convincing.

Comments are closed.