Forms of Future Forum

In an attempt to pick up Amy Hoys question of how we could reinvent the Forum experience, I would first like to take a step back and take a look at the larger picture:

What’s a Forum

If we look at the dictionary, the origins of the term “Forum” are described as: from Latin, originally denoting a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business […] literally an enclosure surrounding a house — ‘what is out of doors’.

In a nutshell, mankind’s need to meet and communicate is as old as it’s habit to form tribes. (Public) places have always been important, because they where the only chance for large groups of peoples to interact and discuss and thus profit from each others thoughts and experiences.

State of Affairs

Today, two things have changed. First of, personal transportation for the masses. Second, instant global communication.

A few hundred years ago, public places had been in walking distance for most citizens. People needed them to gather, meet and communicate, because in general no one had the means to host large parties - neither in resources nor in space. Nowadays everyone owns a car, so cities aren’t built for humans anymore, they are built for cars.

This means we have lost our traditional ways of meet’n'greet - talking face to face - and had to come up with alternate ways to facilitate communication. But those alternate ways miss many channels of communication beyond the mere content (body language, demeanor, tonality, etc.) . Although modern communication solved the spatial problem personal transportation for the masses created, it brought along another set of problems.

Among basic forms of communication (Fact checking to facilitate decision making, exchanging to create new understanding and emoting to create rapport) only fact checking has been greatly facilitated by modern communication.

That’s because of the difference between data and information. Where data is mere facts, information is what you gain from putting the data into perspective. A red lipstick has very different implications from a red street sign, but in both cases “red” is the same data.

Humans are masters at turning data into information - often beyond usefulness (that’s what they call conspiracy theories). The web (aka modern communication) is not. Although the semantic web is all about changing that, there is still a long way ahead of us.

We live in a world where personal transport facilitates virtual communication. But we haven’t yet developed the means to fully replicate every aspect of direct and personal communication. Whatever form of modern communication we use today covers only parts, and is in subtle but essential ways lacking.

Where it all meets

Andreas put it to the point in his reply to Amys post:

The main question is what form of “discussion” (or more general communication) do you want to enable. As you said: Software enables by the way it is.

Forums were obviously created with the idea of facilitating discussion and exchange of many people while making use of previous unavailable advantages like keeping a record of everything said, making the conversations asynchronous and eliminate the need for physical proximity.

As Brian Moon put it in his blogpost: although every group has a common information architecture, even similar groups may vary widely. Sure it would be best to find the optimal solution for every case, but (even the web)business is still industrial (find one solution and throw it at everything, only varying the amount of effort) as opposed to crafting (think producing unique and valuable solutions like a master artisan).

The question is: What exactly is the foundation? What is the form of communication people really want when meeting in large numbers and exchanging ideas, opinions and experiences about a certain commonality? Do they want (corroborated) facts? Do they want the feeling of belonging to a group? Do they want to discuss with equals (on an emotional level, or level of understanding)? Do they look for patronage while discovering a new topic?

What are the right questions to ask, so the house on top of the foundation truly fulfills it tenants needs?

To answer these questions, a lot of honesty and intelligent contemplation, as well as resourceful questioning and pattern devising will be required.

If it weren’t for people like Amy, trying to provoke people into discussion and thinking-for-themselves, we would keep iterating and gradually enhancing on a flawed basis until its very collapse. I’m convinced that it takes a sporadic rattle to step outside your comfort zone and start thinking about solutions from a whole different perspective.

So now that I laid open the basis for my perception of the matters, I will start thinking by myself, maybe aloud and with others to contemplate and discuss about it. And if I come up with anything remotely appearing like an original thought or different perspective, I will let you know.