DN2

=Open Mic Night= Daniel Novak

//Abstract//
This project will use wiki technology to create a space for creative collaboration. The space, called Open Mic Night, will allow amateur performance artists the opportunity to receive feedback on their work, comment on the works of others, and share their knowledge of their craft. The community is geared towards amateur poets, performance artists, musicians, and comedians.

//Participants & Context//
The participants in this community are members of a pre-existing social cohort that performs at Open Mic Nights. While they are amateurs in terms of their level of skill, they also have a great deal of interest in the pursuit of their craft. This community will attempt to accommodate the social mores of the existing cohort and their interactions.

//Learning Goals//
In the short term, this wiki will allow participants to generate and receive criticism. For amateur or beginning performers, constant feedback is essential to growth. As the community matures, individuals may also add their own 'expert' knowledge to the wiki (as culled from their experience), creating experienced individuals.

//Required Resources//
The wiki will require that individuals share the results of their own, independent 'research' into performance, as well as their own work. The production of their work and the amount of time spent performing are variables that the participants must decide for themselves. Beyond that, participants are encouraged to post as often as they have something to add.

//Tools and Models//
This lesson will use wikispaces as a means of facilitating the sharing of experience and criticism. This reflects both the exegesis model of wiki collaboration, as well as elements of the FAQ model.

//Process//
The process of implementing this wiki requires three stages: 1) Set-up of technological and social factors 2) Creation of interest and identification of potential stake-holders (i.e. amateur performers) 3) Early-phase organization of participants.

To translate these into less esoteric language: The designer must set up the wiki and configure it so that users may participate freely, but within particular boundaries (i.e. they must be prepared to share their work, and cannot fully participate if they feel uncomfortable doing so). Equally, the designer must create a 'safe space' for participants to share and receive criticism without feeling judged. This is an essential problem to overcome during the design and issuance of a 'mission statement' at the outset of the project. The mission statement is necessary to set the tone for community, as well as scaffold and provide support to the rest of the community.

The designer must then make the wiki relevant to the participants. By creating compelling outcomes (i.e. good criticism, interesting opportunities for social interaction, useful advice, etc.), the participants will see the usefulness of the wiki to their development of their craft. Thus, when a participant enters their poetry, they will receive good/interesting feedback, and continue to work with the community.

Finally, the designer must keep a strong hand at the outset, but gradually allow the users increased control. This may seem contrary to the wiki's spirit, but it is assuredly not. A community must have a night watchman to keep itself safe before it can have an army. Thus, the designer must act as a shepherd in the beginning, and as a peer in the final, sustainable state. This creates a type of scaffolding that gradually reduces the community's dependence on the designer.

//Rationale//
The collaborative quality of the wiki is essential to the Open Mic Night community. Participants (not 'learners' in the strictest sense) can collaborate to better their work and enlarge their understanding of their craft. Non-collaborative works (such as online forums) do not allow participants to directly link their comments to the texts. The direct relationship between text and criticism is an essential element of pedagogy of this wiki.

//Evaluation//
The quantity and quality of the feedback and information would provide a measure of the project's success or failure. While the project cannot force a participant to use the feedback that others leave them, we can at least hope that they will become aware of possible problems within their performance.

//Reflection//
I do feel that the most interesting quality of the design is the ability of the community to create a self-sustaining dialog. As long as performers post their work and feel comfortable annotating it, the community can remain creative and thrive. This solution combines a number of properties from various other ideas I had along the way. Best of all, the wiki reflects a real community of people. As I left class last Saturday, I saw a large sign for SDSU's Open Mic Night.