September 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm #81958
Subject says it all.
The title bar in my browser window describes GovLoop as a “social network for Government 2.0” — but isn’t that restrictive and not on par with what the network — we — thinks it is? My take is GovLoop is, as the header image describes, intended to connect the government community and that is inclusive of Gov 2.0, not defined by it.
With the GovLoop-GovDelivery news, changes are a foot so I figured I’d suggest one here in the form of a discussion post. Thoughts?
September 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm #81976
My answer: government. But you bring up an interesting mix-up that I’ve been seeing a lot this week. We need to distinguish between social media as a toolset to be learned and social media as a collaborative approach–a way of doing business differently.
Let me explain by using the example of social media and training that I encountered late last week. 1) Social media can be used to more efficiently and effectively train people. 2) We need to train people about social media tools, technologies and tenets. The former is social media as a process tool. The latter is social media as the content.
GovLoop is a platform that enables us to easily collaborate about government topics. Collaboration is a tenet of Gov 2.0. Much about what we collaborate on GovLoop is Gov 2.0 (future vision & action for a better government).
Clear as mud, huh? 😉
September 30, 2009 at 7:49 pm #81974
GovLoop is a platform that enables us to easily collaborate about government topics.
Are you sure about this? If GovLoop is a social network, it’s no different than Facebook — a tool. Government is amid a paradigm shift from providing services to being a platform that is inclusive, not not defined, by services. GovLoop is a tool on that platform, but it’s not the platform.
September 30, 2009 at 9:07 pm #81972
Interesting that this is a subject we are talking about. The managers and the old school directors are trying to figure out how all the social media will fit into the new way of doing things… and here we are at the cross roads that they find themselves. What do we do with the new turnover? How do we define what we do as we go forward with the new changes? When Steve made the announcement, I am sure he had many thoughts in mind for the future (just like managers would), but others are left wondering about the mission, about the purpose, and about where to go from here. Kind of ironic that the new generation of thought (us), is now having similiar discussions which we are trying to help others understand. >>> Things that make you go HUMMM. 🙂
September 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm #81970
Heh. I’ll add another twist to make you hrm:
What if the “new generation of thought” has yet to be known? What if those thought leaders are soon to graduate high school and watching with keen eyes? Makes you wonder if whatever happens in 2 years will be reinvented in 4.
September 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm #81968
GovLoop isn’t a social network, it’s a forum site that uses Web 2.0 social-media tools. True social networks connect people across site/service boundaries. They’re about people and communications, facilitated by sites that include GovLoop but not constrained within any one site. But that’s quibbling about definitions.
Further, I like GovLoop, but it’s highly US centric and not the *anything* for government or Government 2.0 in general.
September 30, 2009 at 10:25 pm #81966
Hey Ari – That was the point of my blog post entitled “More than a #Gov20 Moment,” reacting to the GovLoop/GovDelivery union. In my opinion, GovLoop’s for all of government, with Gov 2.0 being a small subset of that overall picture. My working definitions:
Gov 2.0 = transparent, open and participatory government
Social Media = tools that drive and enable the collaboration and communication that typifies Gov 2.0
Collaboration = what we do here on GovLoop, regardless of the topic
Government = Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, Federal, state, local and international
GovLoop = a social media platform/tool that enables and drives Gov 2.0 (among many other public sector initiatives and movements), and fosters collaboration with people in and around government
Are these definitions acceptable? Do they make sense?
September 30, 2009 at 10:55 pm #81964
Please keep quibbling, as you put it, about definitions. If we can’t agree on the bases, we’ll never agree on runs and steals.
September 30, 2009 at 11:05 pm #81962
Your definitions make sense–to a point.
Off the cuff:
1. I am not employed by government today, and I can think of many in GovLoop’s community who also aren’t government employees. Thus, your government definition needs expansion. Moreso when you consider the presidency is about more than the president; government is about more than its employees.
2. As I replied above to Maxine, I don’t view GovLoop as a platform but a tool within the platform of government.
3. GovLoop is not restricted to collaboration. If nobody adds a comment to items on the main page, is collaboration occurring? Are we collaborating right here in this? Or is collaboration what is possible via “GovLoop connections?” Or is that connecting?
4. I don’t agree Gov 2.0 is necessarily participatory. Open, yes; and transparent as a synonym to open. I like saying @BarackObama tweeted during his campaign but he wasn’t participatory. He was engaged in Gov 2.0 tenets, though.
October 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm #81960
The term “Social Network” has always been a problem for me, when collaborative networks like GovLoop, and the dozens of other more specialized forums are really more about work mission and collaboration than they are about socializing. What “Social Network” has become is the same as what “2.0” is, a shortcut or catch phrase that is easy to use in communication, that really means more than the actual text means. We really don’t mean that any of what we are doing is the 2nd version, implied by a literal use of 2.0, and Social Network really means collaborative knowledge network, or any number of other definitions, all of which are more convenient than the longer clunkier descriptions.
Bottom line is that no matter what we call it, we know what it is by what it does. Unfortunately, in today’s media circus shredder, every attempt to bring people and ideas together is going to be demonized or lionized by opinions based on what ever 10 second or 140 character blip folks wish to believe in, rather than checking it out for themselves. Personally, I’m taking the path shown by my group of leaders, and ignoring the flappers, moving froward with the path of real collaborative knowledge sharing and global networking. As an old guy, I am very encouraged that whenever I shuffle off, the torch will be passed to a more competent and informed community than I have seen in many years. Let’s roll.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.