Most of our internet communities appear to be tied predominantly to one technology or another.

For example, in our wiki community, we are tied to wiki. In particular, the page “RecentChanges” is our major bonding point, and we summon pages out of the PageDatabase to talk over.


In the blog world, blogs are the way the blog community bonds.

You’re either a blogger or you’re not. If you’re not a blogger, you may as well not exist.


Bloggers rarely link to wiki pages, and wiki pages rarely link to blog entries.

I think that’s because blog entries don’t have nice short names. And bloggers don’t have an easy way to link to us, either. Though there is that issue of TrustedLinkLanguage- never know quite what you’re linking too.

Moving along.

Here’s Kuro5hin community.


In this picture, we’ve included the little islands of IM-ers, and their blogs, and a support wiki, and the supporting K5 user information query page. To be fair, I should have included those kinds of things on the other diagrams too. Oh well.

At any rate, you can see that it’s all about K5. The other stuff is there, to be sure. But mostly, it’s K5.

The K5 community begins, lives, and dies by KuroShin.

Having a CommunityTiedToOneTechnology happens because …

Some explanations

Having a CommunityTiedToOneTechnology is a good thing because ….

Having a CommunityTiedToOneTechnology is a bad thing because ….

The Point

Each of these is an instance of a community defined primarily by the main technology that it uses.

This doesn’t feel right to me, somehow. It feels sort of arbitrary. Shouldn’t we use the best tool for a particular job? Why is it so hard to communicate with those other people just immediately next door?

There are more examples. Mailing lists, I guess. Groups that just meet in IRC, and occasionally exchange links to static web pages.

Noteable Exceptions

Is it always like that?


Notable exceptions include, say, Free/OpenSource software development teams, which generally have a complex mixture of:

…with none of them really being “on top,” but then there is a strong CommonCause - the code.

There are also more sophisticated groups on the Internet, such as (if I may be so proud) our own, which has managed to stradle IRC and wiki and- … Well, we straddle those two.

Some of us see some of the other of us’ blogs. Sometimes. Somehow, it’s kind of hard to get around to it.

The Future

I don’t think it’s going to be like CommunityTiedToOneTechnology in the future.

It’ll be OneBigSoup. The OneBigSoup project is all about accelerating us in that direction.

With ubiquitous LocalNames, and working EventSystems?, and standard PageTransfer? (and thus document format) technologies, and PersonalServers?, (so you don’t have to manually log in to every new service), and things like that, it will become very easy to move from technology to technology to technology.

Groups will still have “standard meeting places,” like RecentChanges on a wiki, or the front page and diary page on K5, or the popular blogs. But I strongly believe those “group places” will be sort of like our aggregators, with some additional capabilities, for handling things like votes and other group decision making. It will be a meeting point for many technologies.

references: CommunityWiki: CommunityTiedToOneTechnology - by Nancy White, Full Circle Interaction Blog


I would say that the CommunityTiedToOneTechnology is here to stay. I say this because the larger market, not the one online right now, exhibits this tendency as well. You can extend the technologies to using the phone vs. writing a letter vs. face to face, the blank greeting card vs. the pre-composed greeting card.

As an example, I used a dating site. I write very long emails. I’m a writer. I am not an IMer. I am not a phone person. But, the people I met were not writers of long emails. They felt intimidated by my long emails, because they couldn’t keep up, because they felt a need to balance the exchange. One person asked me to use two different IM systems at the same time.

For most of us getting mom or grandma to use email takes a huge effort. People adopt technologies at different speeds.

The U.S. telcom industry slows down the introduction of technologies, sometimes because it costs too much, other times its a matter of no pre-existing market. When will we use SMS, bluetooth services, WAP? When we start to use them, we will build communites on them. Successful products always build communities around them. And, given that technology products are marketed on the premise that market share matters, complementors excepted, then there are business reasons to keep these communities separate.

Integration of all of these platforms would me integrating the communities. This integration would look like a mall. We would go from one store to another based on our needs. But, how do I know which technology to use when, and what motivation is there to find out when what I have works fine for me.

Beyond integration where is the directory service that tells me how best to communicate with a particular person? So what we do is fund multiple channels. Are we spending too much money communicating across these platforms? Does content management schemes used to communicate across these platforms reduce our desire to communicate or increase the cost of communications? To the latter, I say yes.

I have a picture of Free/OpenSource software development teams, and their technology soup.

Something else entirely:

Immediately, I believe we could put a link at the top of the page, next to RecentChanges and NearRecentChanges?, reading “OurBlogs?.” It would include an aggregation of all of us’ RSS feeds. To see how all the CommunityWiki people are doing, we could just click on this link, and see.

I don’t know if it’s a good idea or not, but it might be fun to try it. We can prototype it on just a page: “OurBlogs?.”

I do believe, though, that if it takes to long for it to load, that we will just not use it. :( So periodic retrieval and caching may be a necessity.

So, I wonder if this has a lot to do with Sunir’s TechnologicalDeterminism meme.

I also wonder how much it has to do with the fact that, once we start using a communications medium, we tend to favor that medium. I guess you might say that ChannelsGetDeeper? with use. If we’re communicating, how much does it matter what medium we use?

Re “OurBlogs?”: Why not just sit on Alex until he makes RSS feeds cluster? (UnifiedClusters)

You guys think what you want, but when I see this page, I think…

“Damn. That’s really lame use of VisualLanguage. There's no InformationDensity. I need to figure out how to put all these ideas in a single picture. Then it’d be good Visual Language.”

I’m so upset over my poor use of image, that I can’t be bothered to think about the actual ideas expressed..! I just keep seeing the poor images, and I think “What? What are you saying? I’m sorry; Hang on… I can’t pay attention. This really sucks.”

Ah well. Lessons learned for next time, I guess.

Lion, I do not want to forget the ideas, and I do not think the pictures saugen. I read and look and I try to understand and like for you too 50.000 other things are important to me. Spam saugt, deine Arbeit nicht. “Ein gutes Bier braucht 7 Minuten”/“A good beer takes 7 Minutes” - this german stuff on the draught, the foam has to settle down. I don’t like it either, I would like it to be faster too, but it still is like that. Full steam ahead btw.

Maybe the fact that people rely on the technology for their community is just a reflection of what happens in the physical world. Buildings and environments shape our interactions. Software and architecture have this in common.

Alex! It sounds like you have that book now :) ‘Design of Everyday Things’

see WhatIsAffordance – anonymous

Um… hmmm.. Lion, I don’t know if this is really really true, or merely a perceptual conflagration? I find that more experience users easily slip between blogs, wiki, IRC, email lists, web fora… and I think whether or not people feel connected enough to have a sense of community has more to do with shared ideals and interests, rather than the technology.

Right now, for example, I am building a sense of connection here in CW… but I don’t feel more connected to say, the PmWiki users group (yet) even though I use that specific tool.

It’s hard for me to articulate what I mean… It’s like we can see the tools, but we can’t see how people are moving amongst them. It may be that as we spend more time in one or the other, it gets easier to exclude… OH! balls! I can’t say what I mean.

Anyway, you’ve probably seen PeopleAggregator?? What do you think of Marc Canter’s project? He’s going to use Drupal and create what he calls a ‘digital lifestyle aggregator’ woo-hoo! Sounds pretty soupy yum

I think Lion is not saying that since you use PmWiki you should be friends with other people on the PmWiki. I think he says that if you make friends on CommunityWiki, chances are you will not meet the same friends on IRC, on your blog, and on the other websites you visit on a regular basis. We don’t know about them. Sure, you meet some of us on the WikiChannel, and some of us read your blog, and RssInclusion does give us a tiny tool to improve the connection between this wiki and your blog, but I think Lion wants more. He asks: Why is our friendship tied to CommunityWiki? Would we no longer be friends if CommunityWiki went away? This makes no sense!

You say we can’t see how people are moving amongst [the tools] – as if you knew the other tools, and as if you knew about us moving between one medium and the other. But the fact is, you probably don’t. It is an illusion because you see me on two or three sites, when I actually use and read seven or eight sites. It is as if we knew about other rooms in each other’s houses, but we only ever meet in the living-room. And in a way, that’s how we protect our privacy in real life. We sing here, dance there, and code somewhere else again, and we don’t tell always our friends in the various communities what else we are doing in our free time.

So maybe what Lion is saying is just curiosity. Because this kind of openness is not required. Not everybody wants to be a glass friend…

I’m not sure what the real answer is, and I’m not sure the answer exists, yet. It seems to be one of the questions in life that you can only answer by living the answer. Some of us will be right, some of us will be wrong, and we will learn from our experiences and shape new understandings of privacy, community, and collaborative artefact-creation as we go along.

Lion, you’re funny. i’ll have to learn more about visual language myself. :)

Evan, i looked for TechnologicalDeterminism on meatball, but i couldn’t find such a page, or even a write-up that expresses the idea in some cohesion. that’s not very memetic! :) help? link to where the meaning is discussed?

i am one of those people who move easily between different applications of computer mediated communication, and have actually quite a complex set of behaviours around that, which mixes technology and people to some degree. it’s mostly about the community i find, but if technology inhibits my communication too much, if it is too far behind the general curve, then i’ll leave the community. orkut is a good example. it’s collecting a great bunch of people, people with whom i’d love to communicate, but the interface sucks so much that i can’t be bothered.

What I’m saying (or, trying to say :) ) is that people in general tend to tie their communities to one main technology. I think Alex’s “If K5 disappeared, the people wouldn’t be friends any more” description is hot on the mark.

This isn’t to say that people don’t instant message each other, or check each other’s blogs outside the main feature.

I think what I’m focusing in on is the SharedAwarenessSystem - the thing that everyone sees, and participates with. How the group knows itself.

I believe I should (A) redraw the pictures and (B) change the title.

Instead of “CommunityTiedToOneTechnology,” I should say “SharedAwarenessConfinedToOneTechnology?.”

“Community” can be mistaken with “Shared Awareness,” I believe that’s the principle mistake I made. They are connected, but by no means the same thing.

So I want to draw attention to the way that our SharedAwareness? system is generally tied to a single technology.

For example, Scoop, or wiki, or blogrolls and aggregation, or whatever.

We also- it’s not common to see bloggers linking into wiki, and wiki linking into blogs, and scoop linking into blogs, and vice versa, or scoop into wiki, and vice versa.

Sure, you can link across. But we rarely do. (IntComm:LocalNames seeks to address this particular one.)

Let’s think about the major things that have enabled us to flow more fluidly between different mediums (TheMedium):

  • URLs - really important!
  • RSS - this has been a major bridge

Things that I think will help tear down walls:

  • Event Systems (IntComm:DingDing) and Plogs (PersonalLogServer)
  • IntComm:LocalNames - convenient naming across medium boundaries.
  • Transclusion / “Snippet” support - preparing things for transclusion, making it easy to do so, and translate stylings.

Now, in the end, I think we’ll still be tied to “one technology.” I mean, a group, in the end, is meeting “some place.” That “some place” must be a coordinate in some medium.

But I think that medium will be inclusive of multiple technologies.

This is basically what I’ve been thinking of as a “GroupServer.” It would be a meeting point for all these other technologies.

You’d see what the people in the group were doing in this particular space (or, rather, in conjunction with this particular “space.”)

This is where you get into ideas such as “group suits.” I’ve talked with Heather a little about this.

You don’t want to share all your activities with the group. You want to do different things with different groups of people. And your group doesn’t want to see all your activities. If I’m talking robots in the robot world, I doubt you all want to see it.

So, we need ways to signal “I’m doing such-and-such, in the name of this group.” Wearing a group suit. It brings ActivityAwareness? to my group.

So, please relax. :) I do not mean to, nor am I building, an Orwellian universe, where you can and must observe everyone else. (What a chore. Who would use it? Who would want to use it?)

I am not building a “house of one room.”

I am simply trying to make the things that should be possible possible.

If we are talking in IRC, in #wiki, as “CommunityWiki” people, there should be some awareness of it on CommunityWiki’s RecentChanges. Maybe even some text of our conversation, or something.

If someone posts to CommunityWiki while we are in IRC, the bot should tell us, “So and so has posted such-and-such.” If someone starts a post to CommunityWiki while we re in IRC, we should see, “Such-and-such page has just been opened for edit by so-and-so.”

“Should” does not mean “universal.” For some reason, people seem to think I believe that every group must use this functionality. If I’m sounding paranoid, it’s because just this has happened before. I was once told, “Who are you to decide what communities should use what technologies?” Rather angrily. I’m not saying who should do what. I’m just saying, “I believe these technologies are good. I believe they are useful. I do not believe that they are just reapplications of existing technologies- this actually requires some new infrastructure.”

For example, the PersonalLogServer, or whatever we want to call it. There’s no point in polling 1,000 wikis and websites to see if someone made a post to them. Push is a must. It’s not a question of “if.” It is a must.

At any rate. I’m going off. :) It’s just frustrating being misunderstood. It’s easier to just make the things, I feel.

Everyone gets plog after they’ve seen it.

Everyone will get these other ideas when they’ve seen it.

But I need help building them and integrating them. And I need to find the people who already think this way, and are already doing these things. Thus the attempts at expression are important.

And I think ideas get through the “cracks.” They go under the surface.

At any rate. So, I think that Shared Awareness will still be confined to just one technology. But that one technology will basically be a gigantic meeting place between many other technologies.

RSS will be there. URLs will be there. But there will be more, and the infrastructure will be in place to make it work together.

I’ll finally be able to manually add an item into RecentChanges, saying, “Check out this thing over here.” This is different than making a whole new page for a single reference, in a similar way that an instant message is different than an e-mail.

Such a small change in UserInterface from IM to e-mail, but what an amazing power!

Heather: Digital Lifestyle Aggregator:

:“This notion of intregrated applications and services, tightly wrapped around aggregation of ALL kinds of data and a level of customization appropriate to every end-user - is exactly what digital lifestyle aggregation is all about.” – DLA def

This sounds like OneBigSoup to me. But a vision of OneBigSoup entirely created, maintained, and owned by some entity called “Broadband Mechanics.”

The name sounds like the Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging to me.

Where are the software releases? What are their implementation plans? How do you get involved? Where is the Free Software? What are the transition plans? Where are the SideSystems?? If this is an integration effort, where is the integration?

I can only work with things that I can communicate with. How do I communicate with “Digital Lifestyle Aggregator?” I can look at a company website, see employee listings, and the ideas that we’re all talking about here- only, directly credited as the properties of “Broadband Mechanics.”

It is kind of hard to get enthusiastic.

If these people are behind FOAF and things like that, then- that’s cool. If they are organizing Free and Open Source projects, then- that’s cool. If they’re maintaining servers, and selling their use- that’s cool.

It’s when they start making buzz about already established ideas, and spinning them as their own, and putting the glitz here and there- then it starts to bother me, and I begin to wonder, “Are these guys competitors?

Are these guys who are going to begin plopping down patents, because we’re developing the same (simple) things for free? This may all just be a VanityFear, because- we’ve got hardly anything right now. But by getting the words out there, it’s going to be annoying. We’re going to describe OneBigSoup of technology, and people are going to go, “Oh! You mean… a Digital Lifestyle Aggregator!”

And I’m going to say, “Uh… No. I mean, a big soup of communications technology.”

“I don’t know about this ‘Digital Lifestyle Aggregator’ thing. Doesn’t that have something to do with your cell phone, or something like that?”

I don’t know. I wish I could be more enthusiastic about it.

But hey. I don’t know much about them, or their thing yet. I mean, for all I know, they just intend to make a bunch of Free Software or PD or whatever WebServices that I can use and work on, and everything’ll work out great. Who knows what they are, and intend to do. I sure don’t.

marc canter is one of those self-styled social software entrepreneurs, and i think all we need to know about his new project is this, and i quote from the page you linked to above: “Apple calls theirs iLife. Microsoft is building it into Longhorn. We feel that we can design, build and maintain a significant number of these kinds of systems (over 20% of the market) and build a highly profitable company doing so within the next 3-5 years.” yeah, yeah. all those social software entrepreneurs want to have the next killer app.

in short, i don’t give a hoot for what he does. i mean, beyond looking at stuff now and then. besides, i hate this term “lifestyle”. i’m gonna save my enthusiasm for truly groundbreaking software, or for other enthusiasts whose primary goal in life isn’t to build a highly profitable company on my back.

So, I think there’s a point here that we’re not investigating. Alex asked, “Would we all still be friends if there were no CommunityWiki?” I hate to be the Breakfast Club Claire here, but probably not. Odds are that if we didn’t have this channel, we would not be collaborating – or if so, only sporadically and in one-on-one situations.

I realize that that sounds kind of cold, but the truth is that I’m just not going to show up on MurrayAltheim’s doorstep in the wee hours of the morning with a pint of Ben & Jerry’s and want to talk about my love life. Having a SuperordinateGoal throws people together who might not otherwise meet.

Sometimes TheChannel makes TheCommunity?. Sometimes it’s the other way around. Sometimes there’s a high school class that keeps in touch through AIM or a Topica mailing list. Other times, an unlikely channel like SuicideGirls? pulls together a community in ways nobody expected. Sometimes when one channel dries up, another one starts – consider some UseNet groups, BulletinBoardSystem ““s, TheWell, or other channels whose communities have moved on in whole or part to greener pastures.

piranha: try doing a search on Meatball for TechnologicalDeterminism. It’s mentioned, but there’s no page for it.

Heh heh. That’s so cool.

Evan, you can show up on my door step any morning, and talk about your love life. Just as long as you bring that pint of Ben & Jerry’s.

But seriously, though.

What I’m talking about here is making our, uh… “Channel..” …into a multi-Medium thing.

Or rather, a medium that is integrated with lots of other mediums. That’s sort of what I’m saying with the “GroupServer” concept, and talking about how right now, we have RSS and URLs, but in the future, we’ll have more ways of linking the mediums together, like LocalNameServer and Transclusions and things like that, and it will be all nice and beautiful and continuous like.

If that makes any sense.

Evan, that doesn’t sound cold, it sounds like you either don’t know anyone here in that way you need (yet), or you need to have meatspace contact for such things. but for me whether or not i want to show up on anyone’s doorstep with a pint of ice cream to talk about my love love doesn’t really depend on the channel at all; it depends on what sort of a personal friendship has grown out of a connection. it makes no difference to me whether that’s a usenet group, a wiki, or a person who is a co-volunteer at the local homeless shelter. i can weep on virtual shoulders probably even better than on meaty ones, because heck, there’s bound to be a virtual one there when i need it, somewhere across the world. i realize that’s not true for everyone, though. but it seems to become more common.

since i’ve talked about more personal stuff with Murray than with with you, i’d likely pick him to whine to first, but that’s obviously not a function of the channel, since i’ve met both of you through CW.

and i’d really like to be able to link the channels better, because that’d make it easier for me to stay in touch with all the people i meet in such far-flung technology spaces instead of losing a fair number of them before i can get to know them well enough to become friends.

My Ben & Jerry’s note was probably a little inept. I’m not saying that relationships or communities developed in an on-line forum can’t be intense, personal, and meaningful. Some of my best friendships and my most rewarding creative collaborations have been developed in on-line fora.

What I wanted to say was that I think there may be a qualitative difference between communities that pre-exist and choose a channel for interaction, and those that develop because of the channel. If I was going to link that to the subject of this page, I’d postulate that communities that develop out of a channel may be more likely to stay closely tied to that channel than those that exist or existed independent of the channel.

I think there’s a very mystical question here about the relationship of a community to its channels of communication. Would CommunityWiki-the-community exist without CommunityWiki-the-wiki? It’s probably the case that all the people would still exist, separately (barring one of those alternate-universe scenarios where the 10 minutes he takes posting pictures of sea hares keeps BayleShanks from walking out the door and getting hit by a bus B-). But would we have come together in this way using some other channel of communications? Although I like the idea of a Vonnegutian karass [1], I’d probably say no, we wouldn’t.

A counter-example is that I admin a MailingList of all my (living) family on my father’s side. Would this community exist without the channel? Absolutely. The community created the channel, not the other way around.

This makes me think that I should probably start GranFalloon? and KaRass?, as well as CommunityCreatedChannel? vs. ChannelCreatedCommunity? (the pairs aren’t equivalent, I just thought of them at the same time.)

I imagine that amongst the first few mailing lists, there were mailing lists about mailing list development.

I think I’m working towards the technology being background, and something that we, far from being nationalistic about- don’t even have to think about at all..! Then we would talk about things like basket weaving communities in 3rd world countries, church communities, national geographic type stuff, etc., etc., etc.,. {;D}= Not literally, I mean- but the point is, we’d be talking about stuff other than the technology itself.

I’m thinking: We’re a group that gets along together. Rather than being so stoked that wiki is so great (which it is,) and thinking it should become everything (which it shouldn’t,) we should see the bigger picture of all these technologies, and how they can work together.

I came to this path by thinking about InterWiki technology. Things like page transfer between wiki. Then I realized, “Wait, these are ‘deep’ problems- the bloggers are worried about these same issues.” Then I realized, “Wait, it’s not just blogs and wiki, it’s every communications medium.” And I realized how simple (conceptually) it is to get everything working together. It’s all in the protocol. It just needs to be done.

The main reason I think we’re like this right now- one community tied to one technology- is because it’s too hard to use multiple channels.

By “too hard,” I mean- it takes a full 10-20 seconds to (A) find the URL of a mailing list thread, (B) copy it (C) work it into a wiki page post.

If you could just name the thread from memory, (“As mentioned in %I Need Help With BlahBlah%, …”) we’d be using the same technology that makes wiki links work, and bridge in the mailing list. People would start to see the mailing list.

This in itself wouldn’t be enough to make people use the mailing list as well, though.

Why is that?

Because to use a mailing list, you have to subscribe. You have to send back the little “are you who you say you are?” mail as well. Then you have to set up mail folder forwarding. And there are alllll these other little things you have to do as well, that make it a non-trivial option to just “post to the mailing list.” Waaay beyond the 10-20 second barrier for linking to a mailing list subject that we noted as significant before.

Because there are all these little barriers, these things that don’t have technologies to help them work together, we find ourselves “stuck” in one medium, that has high integration within itself.

I had a similiar thought about mailing lists a week or so ago, feeling frustrated and lost in one that is particularly good, but I have trouble with since I have an aversion to the form, or TheMedium that is mailing lists.

So here’s the write-up: LimitationsOfMailingLists

have you guys seen this? – it’s on using the whole spectrum of communication tools.

Well, wait- DavidCary:

“If a bunch of people are interested in something, then it shouldn’t matter if some computer thousands of miles away crashes. Those people still want to chat about their shared interest.”

…isn’t really CommunityTiedToOneTechnology, at least as we’ve been talking about it. That’ CommunityTiedToOneServer?.

You could have a distributed server, but the community would still be talking over one Technology. We really need to change the title to: SharedAwarenessTiedToOneMedium?..!

I’m thinking about a rewrite. Don’t know if it’s high enough priority to do.

Yes, blogs and Usenet News keep on rolling even when a server fails. But KuroShin, nearly every wiki, mailing list, etc. is in practice tied to a particular server, which I see as a problem. But after that (mostly technical) problem is fixed, the other (mostly social) problems you mention still remain. DavidCary

How about MediumBusNumber?? :) (analogy: Wiki:BusNumber)

Humm… Intertechnology Bridging?

I find it facinating how when communities move from one point of technology rondevous into another one there is this resulting displacement as some people get left behind. Folks then spend time trying to live in both worlds. Engineers implement all kinds of things to automate the dataflows between the two. For example, I wonder if anybody has build a bot that announces Wiki changes an IRC channel with diffs.

We’ve been setting to do just that!

The key thing to this idea (and other ideas like it…) is that you need an IntComm:EventSystem? that your wiki connects to.

It could be IntComm::DingDing, it could be Jabber, it could even be IRC itself.

Once you have the event system in place, you can do things like:

  • Automatically mirror pages, once they are edited.
  • Subscribe to edits on a per-person basis.
  • Subscribe to all edits (the IRC bot)

…yadda yadda yadda.


The worst problem with being so “tied” is that the SysopPowerStructure? actually can tell people who they can associate with. Two pseudonymous or anonymous parties who connect only via that forum cannot be sure that when they communicate offline they are talking to the same person. This is also how DatingService? exclusivity works. It puts too much power in the hands of the sysops.

Thankfully, [[trolls?]] are not so restricted, and can float around in forums (and often have to, as they are attacked by the SysopPowerStructure?). Accordingly, trolls will be the actual community, and the sysops merely the cops.

The most robust “community” will be the most [[troll-friendly?]] by definition. Come join the best trolls at doesn’t sound troll-friendly. no free topic.

Speaking of inter-technology bridges… The blogging communities AutoTrackbacks are cool.

From my blog, something on channel conflict between technologies as exemplified around negotiating the communication channel used for a bit-o-work.

Just noticed there were some categories at the top that seemed to want examples and then just underneath, there were examples that fit one of the categories. So I moved that section in lieu of actually reworking the whole page.


Define external redirect: CommunityTiedToOneServer DatingService KaRass ActivityAwareness SharedAwarenessConfinedToOneTechnology OurBlogs troll-friendly CommunityCreatedChannel NearRecentChanges SysopPowerStructure ChannelsGetDeeper EventSystem SharedAwarenessTiedToOneMedium GranFalloon SideSystems PersonalServers SuicideGirls PeopleAggregator EventSystems MediumBusNumber TheCommunity trolls ChannelCreatedCommunity OneTrueMedium SharedAwareness PageTransfer

EditNearLinks: PageDatabase SwitchingCost TheWell PmWiki RssInclusion UserInterface MailingList KuroShin BulletinBoardSystem TechnologicalDeterminism UseNet VanityFear GodKing OpenSource WebServices GoodEnough