Comments on: Alternatives to ‘UGC’

By: kybernetikos

kybernetikos — Wed, 13 May 2009 06:45:03 +0000

> Universal creation powers

Talking about the affordances is a good idea.

> suggests that there’s something inferior about doing it for money, and I don’t think we need to suggest that.

I don’t think it, and maybe we don’t need to, but I’m not against making that suggestion, simply as a way of balancing the current inaccurate hierarchy of quality.

By: David Chess

David Chess — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:55:31 +0000

I like UGC fine, myself, for the time that we’re currently living in. The whole *point* of it is that (where UGC is enabled) there isn’t a distinction between the “users” and the “content creators”, because the users can create / generate / contribute content. It makes nicely clear, in just three little words, that anyone who uses the system can also generate content for it. Eventually this will be true in the default case and we can just say “content”, but that’s not where we are today.

“Audience material” is just awful; it conveys nothing at all. (”I don’t think he’s audience material; he doesn’t jump up and down and scream enough.”)

Rather than looking for a name for the stuff itself, how about we look for a good name for the affordances that make it possible? “Universal creation powers”? “Everyone’s a creator”? I do like “Love not money” :) but it tends to suggests that there’s something inferior about doing it for money, and I don’t think we need to suggest that…

By: Roo Reynolds

Roo Reynolds — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:05:26 +0000

Ahh.. sorry, I’d totally misinterpreted that comment. Thanks for clearing it up.

By: kyb

kyb — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:37:51 +0000

> Doesn’t mercenary imply a financial motivation rather than an LNM particpation? :-)

Exactly. I was suggesting that it’s the “professional” work that should be distinguished by calling it “mercenary sourced content”, and the stuff provided by those who do it for love should just be called “content”, because it will be the norm and not need some sort of word to distinguish it.

By: Roo

Roo — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:32:20 +0000

Oops. Thanks, Mr T. Fixing the title (without changing the URL. Good URLs don’t change, even when they have a typo in them.)

By: Trippenbach

Trippenbach — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:30:14 +0000

I like ‘LNM’ too. But as long as we’re sticking with acronyms, shouldn’t that be ‘UGC’ rather than ‘UCG’ in the post title?

By: Roo

Roo — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:51:08 +0000

LNM is lovely. 'Authentic Media' is a tiny bit vomitous 'Community Sourced Media/content/stuff' is great. Doesn't mercenary imply a financial motivation rather than an LNM particpation? :-)

By: James Wallis

James Wallis — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:48:55 +0000

NO. For “nutjobs’ oars”.

By: kyb

kyb — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:28:45 +0000

Count me as a vote for LNM (for as long as we need a special word for it).

By: Gavin Bell

Gavin Bell — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:25:08 +0000

@matt LNM is delightful