[caption id="attachment_1139" align="alignleft" width="600" caption="ROFL: micro-blogging on micro-blogging?"] [/caption] I am not sure if you noticed the release of Google's side wiki a few weeks back? Like most Google products, easy to install and simple to use, even by the standards of instruction-reading averse people like me. Basically adds an icon on your browser bar that opens up a commenting window on the left of most web sites. Means there can be an online discussion about a site, on the site in question, without the involvement or perhaps knowledge of the site's author. The example above shows people discussing twitter on my twitter profile. I am not sure what type of use this sidewiki will generate - any ideas? Just as organisations are finally getting the message and implementing social media listening posts to monitor what the blogosphere is saying about their brand - they now have to add their own sites to the list! I can think of several options for sidewiki use and like many things on the web we will most likely see a mixture of all of these. My random musings;

• with no evidence of moderation we may see a lot of opportunistic competitive posts on high volume sites. Unilever links on Nestle sites and vice versa?
• the spirit of Wikipedia may take root and we may see people adding intellectual value and background to sites. Could an integration of some kind with Wikipedia be on the cards for sites referenced in Wiki articles?
• I certainly expect satisfaction ratings on product and services related sites. Especially from raving fans and really upset disappointed customers. Amazon explicitly features customer ratings, we may see many sites doing the same, whether they choose to or not.
• SPAM, graffiti&with a bit of luck some humour of the 'foo wuz here' variety. Comments are tied to a Google account, nominally discouraging anonymous, but that is no guarantee that identity is real surely?
• I am less confident that we will see conversations that persist in the way we see them persist inside some online communities - be they communities of practice, place, interest, fans, or cults. Where is the unseen but guiding hand of the community manager/moderator that I believe is important to maintaining community health? Even Wikipedia needs editors, though their presence is light touch it is crucial.

This is an important point isn't it? With an already amazing choice of places to chat with 'people like me', where will user generated content go? Will it migrate from blogs and forums to individual company sites? Will we all be blogging on Seth's comment-less blog out of spite? [caption id="attachment_1140" align="alignleft" width="600" caption="Seth's blog famously does not allow comments. LOL"][/caption] We have already discussed research that shows that conversations extend and develop, become richer, when they occur within a user population that has a mixture of susceptible and expert participants. To cluster this heterogeneous group, you would think, requires a community of some kind, with a manager that keeps the community interesting and moving along or participation drops off quickly. Interesting thought - sidewiki may give us valuable insight into the differences between managed and unmanaged forum venues, each within context (the community premise and the host site for the parasitic sidewiki). My bet is that engaging conversations will be more likely and numerous in their own places, where community managers facilitate. Ratings and short comments / complaints will dominate on the millions of candidate sites. One important development for brands interested in customers' social media sentiment - keep an eye on your own site. And have a branded community, manager at the ready, where you can invite engaged customers to continue a dialogue. Offer them a venue that less resembles a blank wall and a spray paint can. Graffiti obviously fills some customer tagging need, but not the need for conversation & engagement.