We need to engage with our audience, have a conversation – and like all good conversations, we should talk sometimes, other times we should just listen – most of all – we should demonstrate, as any good communications consultant will tell you – that we’ve heard, understood and perhaps changed our behavior as a result of that ongoing discussion.

Lastly, I think we DO need to better engage with the audience – it’s called Interactive Media for God’s sakes.

/remove’s soapbox – whew I feel better, feel free to moderate/delete.

best

however, philosophically, i’m not sure this is the point of MMOGs? the same question is being asked and answered zillions of times in “real life” too — do we or don’t we want this type of “realism” in our games?

thoughts?

With that being said, from a practical user perspective Wikipedia offers me two positive experiences: one, as a reference source for almost anything imaginable; and two, as a place to get a unique view of breaking news.

These are very powerful tools to enhance the BBC, or any other project, but I think that they two have limitations that are not full expressions of public broadcasting. They are in effect, alternative forms of the same thing.

Nigel I know that your point in the post was about how to make the BBC more permeable and more democratic (even as “editorial voice” was given high marks for the distinctiveness in market), but while a perhaps a huge step, still seems like a not a full flowering of the thinking.

I know that there are wonderful, high concept projects around community memory (I believe the Long Now Foundation in SF has done some work in this area, but am still exploring.), but nothing that has resulted in practical tools that help consumers to turn knowledge into action.

I recently joined a massively multiplayer online game to test out how crowds manage themselves. Apart from now being addicted, the ability to manage hundreds of live conversations is great. There are self-contained rules, cultural norms that are permeable that allow for new members to join and participate, etc. But it has no memory as the same question is answered and answered and answered.

On the other hand, Wikipedia – for the occasional user, that is the normal user – is all about memory. Yes, it is not crystal, but for someone who does not actively participate it is pretty close to glass.

How can we mash together Wikipedia with MMOG that results in active engagement and molding as the conversation flows, but the output being an indexable/discoverable community memory?