Talk:Challenges in the new arts
From WikiContent
There's something awkward about Lizard's contribution to "Avoiding unhealthy immersion", although the point should be there. Let's focus on the phrase "good for society". Is there a way to remove this phrase and state the original problem in "Avoiding unhealthy immersion" better? I believe there is a qualitative difference between the feeling of immersion lots of people get from the online world and any devotion some people have to sports. But the focus should be on the individual, not on what's "good for society"--I'd like to accommodate Lizard's objection.Andyoram 05:57, 11 October 2006 (PDT)
OK, I am trying some substantial edits as a way to defuse the controversy over immersion. The title change is very significant--I hope the new title "Balancing the tendency toward immersion" implies less of a value judgment. The "good for society" phrase that triggered Lizard's observation is removed. Note also the replacement of "should" with "could"--now the choice is left up to artists. I believe the section should be maintained in some form, because immersion is an important social characteristic that many people worry about. Andyoram 06:47, 11 October 2006 (PDT)
An argument could be made here for a graduated scale of collaboration: from high level originary creators with the ability to define and alter core narrative and characters, to lurkers who rate the contributions of others and in doing so, act as simple proofreaders, or editors, or quality filters. Somewhere in between: an artist, not necessarily committed to the project but interested in it, who browses a catalogue of 'wants' to find a call for contribution that suits his/her abilities and interests.
The previous comment is a call for projects to define roles and assign users to roles: I can imagine such roles as primary contributors, editors, and reviewers. If something emerged out of long experience on a project, it might be useful, but if it were imposed from the start based only on assumptions of how people contribute, it would probably become a burden.
I find that people move quickly and unpredictably between roles--they might jump in to write a lot, then move back and end up just doing occasional reviews. Roles are hard to define, and too many systems have faded into oblivion because they imposed top-down requirements that didn't fit real ways people work.
I do like the observation in the previous comment that some artists have special relationships to other artworks: they want some connection to the work; some chance to speak on their own while appreciating what others have contribute to the work.Andyoram
