Speaking In An Empty Room

Without new and continuing Audience, you are preaching to the choir ThinkingOutLoud.DonaldNoyes.20111101

Consider this

Those who participated in this wiki, say, 5 or 6 years ago, could expect anything they posted to be read, and for a reactive dialogue to result, particularly if the receiving audience was large enough to include those interested in the topic of the post. It would have struck a resonance such that would be others who would speak out, in support, oppostion, or request more information and clarification, thus beginning a dialogue.

Those who participate today can not expect to receive similar responses, since the greater percentage of those who participate are often more interested in correcting or uncorrecting spelling and grammar, and in battling it out with each other, becoming what I call "disturbers". This is a class and type of participant who deals with the form and source of the form thinking that it was dialogue. It has the effect of non-collaboration.

The room in which this now occurs is to the newcomer similar to arriving in a room where there is only a speaker and no audience, or an audience where the object is to argue about such things as the other person's apearance or to be involved in speaking to each other at the same time without bothering to listen. Not unlike the tv program where guests are seated as a panel ready for presentation and debate, but not having the courtesy or patience to hear what the other is saying, therefore raising the volume until all a hearer can perceive is a big noise. It is not a surprise that the new hearers (visitors), simply depart and do not become involved in the generated confusion and meaningless of the dialogue which was supposed to enlighten, clarify and carry meaning to those, including opponents who have taken the time to enter the room.

The more the participation takes on the emptiness and becomes void of meaning, the less likely a random visitor is likely to enter and hear what is being said and become involved in what was expected to be a sharing and collaborative experience. Those who still remain and do not involve themselves in the conflict and disturbance but rather add something they consider valuable to the sounds in the room are found to be SpeakingInAnEmptyRoom, even though others are present and can involve themselves in collaboration on the topic presented, but do not, because when and if they do, they receive no attention or are not responded to with an "encouraging word". It isn't Kansas any more, for the Home on the Range is filled with "discouraging words".

Is this trend toward emptiness to be the continuing and dominant trend? I am afraid so, as long as the "disturbers" continue their non-collaborative involvement and the din continues in the room. The eventual, GoodThing result, is that the room, which has become empty of the disturbers, who tire of meaninglessness of their participation, have left the room to the emptiness they have created.

Then behold, something new occurs! While the room is empty of participants, several, discovering its existance, and upon entrance discover it has a history and a meaning. They view the past things that have occured here and the form that wiki provides for dialogue, and then decides that this wiki thing is and can be Useful, Usable and Used again. The RecentChanges begin to have meaningful, participative exchanges, and a series of dialogues appear in which the participant use both their hearing (reading) and speaking (writing) to exchange ideas, experiences and new technologies. They find still in its archives the results of past dialogues and are no longer able to recognize the shouting and confusion of the "disturbers", who although they have offered their graffiti, it has no impact on the "flow of meaning" that did once and can again occur here.

-- DonaldNoyes.20111101

CategoryFuture (as opposed to past)