Here I argue that the underlying mechanics of Twitter more closely resemble the knowledge co-creation seen in wikis than the dynamics seen with conversational tools like instant messaging and interactions within online social networks.
This article significantly deepens our understanding of Twitter, but I do not think the either/or structure or negation in the title of the piece helps.
He is splitting hairs (bloody academics, eh?). If you create a definition of “conversation” that doesn’t map onto Twitter, then it is a tautology to say Twitter is not a conversation platform. But it doesn’t really matter, does it? Indeed, better to say, maybe, that Twitter is as much of a conversation platform as Wikipedia: cast the argument as positive assertion of the affinities. Then the real light of the piece: that Twitter is a knowledge sharing and co-creation platform (as much as Wikipedia) shines through.
Unless the definition of conversation is crucial to some pragmatic end?
