Skip to main content

Home/ Tic&Travail/ Group items tagged notoriété

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Aurialie Jublin

LinkedIn ouvre son programme "influenceurs" à tous ses membres | L'Atelier - 2 views

www.atelier.net/...me-influenceurs-membres_427605

linkedin innovation réseau social notoriété

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • En ouvrant son programme de partage de contenu à tout le monde, la plateforme espère que ses membres produiront un flux régulier de contenu partageable pour les professionnels d’entreprise, de la même façon que Facebook avec son fil d’actualité composé en grande partie de photos à destination de son réseau d’amis. LinkedIn va utiliser un algorithme pour identifier les articles qui auront le vent en poupe par les lecteurs pour ensuite les mettre en avant et les distribuer de façon plus large. En outre, LinkedIn permet aujourd’hui à ses utilisateurs de suivre des personnes qui ne sont pas dans leur réseau et de construire leur propre groupe de suiveurs, à la manière de Twitter. Chacun pourra alors devenir un influenceur sur LinkedIn sans avoir la notoriété de Bill Gates. LinkedIn insère aussi des annonces dans le fil d’actualité des utilisateurs, afin d’avoir des revenus publicitaires.
  • L’objectif de cette modification, est de rendre l’interface sociale, un lieu où chaque membre peut devenir productif et réussir sa carrière professionnelle, pas seulement dans le cadre de la recherche d’emploi ou de personne.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 14
     
    "LinkedIn a ouvert son programme « influenceurs » à tous ses utilisateurs, leur permettant ainsi de publier du contenu, de suivre des personnes et de gagner des « followers », à la manière de Twitter."
Aurialie Jublin

Digital labor : portrait de l'internaute en travailleur exploité - France Cul... - 4 views

www.franceculture.fr/ravailleur-exploite-2012-12-08

tictravail travail technologie labor numérique

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 16 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 16 Jan 13
     
    Emission de Place de la Toile du 08/12/12
  • Aurialie Jublin on 22 Jan 13
     
    Notes sur l'émission : Digital labor, notion de la fin des années 2000 : participation en ligne, spontanée, de citoyens, d'"amateurs professionnels", logique de don. Mais quand notre participation est moins spontanée, plus dirigée → spectre de l'exploitation. La participation en ligne serait donc en fait un travail, et elle devrait être rémunérée. Activités concernées : blog, édition en ligne, … ex Huffington post ne rémunère pas car c'est considéré comme des tribunes Autres activités : recherches sur google, liker, … → être présent en ligne = production de valeur web 1.0 - économie du portail, le seul fait qu'il y avait trafic donnait de la valeur web 2.0 -développement de l'inter-relation et des moteurs de recherches Données sur les liaisons qui comptent, pas les données personnelles des gens Si on considère que le cœur de la valeur sont l'inter-relation, la capacité à contextualiser, d'avoir une activité intelligente (c'est à dire de s'être débarrassé des activités mécanisables des opérations mentales), l'attention, la capacité de tri sémantique, les capacités de s'adapter, d'innover (tout ce que YMB nomme les immatériels non codifiables), la captation de cela est de l'exploitation, mais elle est collective. Il y a peut être exploitation mais pas aliénation, ni sentiment d'exploitation, car pas de souffrance liée à cette exploitation. On retire de bénéfices de cette activité : connaissances, notoriété On veut que les gens restent actifs jusqu'au bout, qu'ils restent "vivant" face à la machine, tout au long du cycle, mais cela ne lui donne pas l'impression d'être aliéné intellectuellement -> capital intellectuel, il n'y a plus d'un côté le travail et de l'autre le capital. Théorie sur les 2 degrés d'exploitation (assez complexe, expliquée ici 140&dq=exploitation+au+deuxième+degré+cognitif&source=bl&ots=sxECUkbSsD&s
Aurialie Jublin

Exploring portable ratings for gig workers - Doteveryone - Medium - 0 views

medium.com/...s-for-gig-workers-5632fd9b262e

gig economy notation notoriété individu indépendant

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 12 Feb 18 - No Cached
  • Unlike the traditional economy, the gig economy doesn’t rely on CVs or letters of recommendation. You build your reputation on one platform at a time — and your reputation is often the route to higher earnings (A service user is more likely to choose someone with 100 five-star ratings than just one or two). Platforms don’t want people to leave, so they don’t let workers have ownership over their own ratings. Leaving a service means starting over.
  • More recently, we’ve been exploring the “how” of ratings portability: what technology, data, user experience and investment might be needed to make this real.Our design team, along with our policy intern and developer James Darling, have been conducting user research and prototyping possible technical solutions for ratings portability. Here’s where we’ve got to so far.
  • “Cab” drivers didn’t have visible habits around their ratings, weren’t checking them frequently and when we spoke about them, they told us that this wasn’t something they’d considered before or something they were particularly concerned about. They were confident in their skills and ability to find work outside of their platforms, and viewed ratings more as performance indicators for their platform owners — the main fear being a drop below 3.5 stars, where they might be dropped from the platform completely.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • This “performance indicator over ratings” feeling was even stronger with food delivery workers. They expressed even less concern about the issue, focussing more on their delivery metrics such as attendance and cancellations. The rider app screens we were shown support this.
  • This makes sense for both food delivery and transit: the customer has little to no ability to use workers’ reputation data to inform their purchase decision. (When we press a button to order a cab or for food to be delivered, speed is the primary factor and platforms emphasise that in their design.)
  • It was a radically different story for tradespeople. Their reputation data feels important to them, and they prefer to keep control over it. They preferred word of mouth reputation and recommendations, as there was no middleman who could take that away from them. Online platforms were seen as something to graduate away from once you had a sufficient “real world” presence.
  • Alongside our user research, James Darling looked at the technical possibilities, drawing on the Resolution Trust’s initial work and the research that our policy intern did. They came up with five possible solutions and gave them names and some logos. They are in increasing order of complexity.
  • Personal referenceThis is the status quo: when approaching a new employer, workers create their own CVs, loosely standardised by convention.
  • Publicly hosted reputationsWhat feels like a technical quick win is to ensure that a platform hosts a publicly accessible web archive of all worker reputation data, including for profiles which have been disabled. This would allow workers to provide a URL to anyone they wish to provide their reputation data. How would this be encouraged/enforced?
  • Profile verificationHow does a worker prove that they are the owner of a publicly hosted reputation profile? There are a few technical solutions that could be explored here, like a public/private key verification or explorations around OAuth. Is it possible to create something that is secure, but also usable?
  • Decentralised open data standardA data standard for reputation data could be created, allowing automated transfer and use of reputation data by competing platforms or external services. Creating the standard would be the trickiest part here: is it possible to translate between both technical differences of different platforms (eg 5 stars versus 80%), but also the values inherent in them.
  • Centralised data holderPerhaps one way to help standardise and enforce this easy transfer of reputation data is to create some sort of legal entity responsible for holding and transferring this reputation data. A lot of discussion would have to be had about the legal framework for this: is it a government department, a charity, a de facto monopoly?
  • We also thought about ways to verify identity (by including an RSA public key), what a best practice data standard might look like (here’s an example in JSON), and what the import process might look like (via a mock competitor site). The code for all this is on Github, and everything above is available in a slide deck here.
  • I worry that the concept of “owning” people’s ratings reflects some deeper, more systemic issues around who “owns” things more generally in society. In the coming months, we’d like to keep working with like minded organisations to explore that idea more, as well as how the cumulative effects of those systems affect us all.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page