What? I have to share something?

In investigating the values of online communities (as part of my thesis work), I have come to realize the importance of public articulation of identity.  This means that, although users understand the importance of protecting one's privacy (against credit card theft, stalkers, identity-theft), there is also the understanding that the user needs to relinquish certain amounts of guardedness in order to participate.  You have to share in order to play the game.  And the "game" aspect of online communities is important as well--there is certainly a value-system built around play and delight within these communities.  This sensibility helps to create online identities (of an individual and/or group), facilitate relationships, and thusly create a web of users, which is part of the point of the World Wide Web.

Part of the problem with many (and certainly not all) nonprofits and philanthropies is a value-system of closely guarded secrets, methodologies, and identities.  True transparency is not what one thinks of when considering the operations of a nonprofit or philanthropic organization.  A sense of open sharing does not exist within this social change community to the same extent as it does with Web 2.0 folks who are concerned with open-source software and publicly articulating their relationships with one another.  Of course there are little groups that form where nonprofit CEO's can share their experiences with one another and get advice, and many of those groups have online counterparts.  The difference with those online groups and the general populous of innovative Web 2.0 online communities is the exclusivity of those nonprofit groups.  They're not willing to share with anyone who cares to join the discussion.

So there seems to be a fundamental difference between the philanthropic/nonprofit community and the new media/Web 2.0 communities.  This difference has been a slowing force for the nonprofit community in the adaptation of new media resources for revolutionizing their social change efforts and the social change community.  Now, again, I recognize that there are some nonprofit/philanthropic groups who have embraced the Web 2.0 philosophy, but the general, broad community has not--as compared to the online video-gaming community or the open source software community.

What do I think about the future of the nonprofit community and its adoption of new media tools?  I think it needs to happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will.  A lot of the culture of this community is located in a group that is not particularly tech-savvy, which might cause it to view new media tools as intimidating or just not understand all the benefits and disadvantages.  Furthermore, the community is (plagued) by a more antiquated sense of how to conduct business.  Much of the Web 2.0 community is young, tech-savvy, and therefore well-integrated into a value-system of sharing, playing, and understanding the intricacies of privacy issues and how to negotiate them.  Perhaps as the nonprofit community grows younger and has more experience with such tools and makes an effort to understand both the advantages and disadvantages of new media tools they will be able to make the shift to being able to actively participate in the Web 2.0 community.  I certainly hope this happens. 

Comments

[Mark Petersen]

Hey... missing your contributions!

I just have come into the blogosphere, and think you have a lot of worthwhile things to say. My own blog focusing on faith and philanthropy, Open Hands, is just underway, under a month.

I'm blogging from the perspective of a private foundation - and intrigued at the idea. As you mention the tendency in foundations is to keep one's cards very close to their chest. A blog, or an online community, blows that apart.