Category: techno

So I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not – but there’s this phenomenon going on around you – Web 2.0.
I don’t know that anyone’s really settled on a definition of this new wave of Internet sites but I think everyone can agree on what it’s not – stagnant, outdated websites that simply push information onto people, rather than allowing them the opportunity to pull the information they want/need.

Think about sites like Flickr, YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, Wikipedia and Twitter where there’s a broad wealth of information and content that is typically user driven and user created. No more Mr. Corporate America telling people what they will and can’t read. Users are sharing content and connecting in new amazing ways.

Last week as Laurie and I were out and about I received an update via txt message from my mate Thomas over in Scotland. He was watching the final episode of 24, Season 6 with his wife.
I commented that I knew more about Thomas than most of my friends who live within a 30-45 mile radius of my home — and Thomas and I have never met in person. Thomas later commented that he knows more about Laurie and I than he does our next door neighbor – maybe a good thing and a bad thing.

As part of my job here at DCCCD we’ve been discussing our district’s and specifically our department’s Intranet presence. I was forwarded an article (must be a member to read) yesterday from Communication World that suggests most Intranet sites are built around early 1990 standards, not the new Web 2.0 ideas. I would hardily agree – at least of the few that I’ve seen.

Most companies chose to block Web 2.0 sites and applications from their users – I’m sure Laurie can give you an earful on how annoying that is for her where she works. She’s now blocked from visiting our own personal blogs and sites at work. She has to use a work around by using a VNC viewer to access the web over her computer and our DSL at home – very clever on her part.

The article in Communication World also suggests that because these Web 2.0 platforms work so well, people are finding their own work arounds for sharing information and building communities – even work related communities.

So what about our churches? Do we know folks we’ve met through Myspace or Facebook better than those around us at the ultimate community – our own church? And can churches use Web 2.0 ideas to build community – or should they?

After reading the article in Communication World it occurred to me, there may also be some Open Source Social Networking software out there. Sure enough – there is.
I found Elgg which looks like it’s super customizable (and also appears to have their entire website built around a Wiki). Could churches use software like Elgg to build their website, or at least expand on their current website? Or should churches simply build communities around social networks that are already out there?

I tend to believe we should be where the people are – not pulling them into separate realms or worlds but I don’t know. Maybe something like encounterSpace or iencounter would be beneficial. Right now our average attendance is between 180-250 each week. By far MySpace seems to be the most used social networking site used by folks at our church. We have 75 MySpace friends, we have 21 members in the encounter Facebook group and 4 or 5 people who have submitted photos to the encounter Flickr group. But would those numbers increase and communities form on a separate network “exclusive” for encounter folks? I don’t know. I participate in a semi-social networking site for geocaching but I don’t typically seek out other geocaches on places like Facebook and MySpace. Yet while my university offers an Alumni Social Networking portal, I’m more likely to connect with folks from UMHB through MySpace or Facebook. What do you think?