The Copenhagen Project

Analysis: Twitter

Twitter is a micro blogging service. If we look at an individual user page and regard the user as the “owner” of it’s own micro blog, our analysis looks like this:

Twitter user page / micro blog
Organization
Non-profit
Object
Original content
Presentation
Flow / Non-prioritized
Conversation
No conversation
Editing
Editor (Central)
Editor type
Human
Frequency
Continuously
Object provider
Editor

Do we regard Twitter as a tool or do we regard it as a media?

If we look at it from a user perspective, Twitter is a tool that enables users to run their own micro blog. In this regard Twitter in itself is just a tool (Like  WordPress and any other CMS), while the final result of using the tool - each individual micro blog - is a media.

This is also true at other services, e.g. del.icio.us, which is first of all a tool that enables users to run their own link media. But the people behind del.icio.us has decided to also run their own media - the front page of del.icio.us (see post). The front page media and the individual user pages (here’s mine) are two different types of medias, while the whole service is a tool - a CMS for links.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine

No Comments, Comment or Ping

Reply to “Analysis: Twitter”

Subscribe without commenting


We are building a catalog of media building bricks in order to reinvent the services we use to understand and keep up to date with what happens in the world. Read more...
Jeppe Kabell
Jeppe Kabell
Researcher
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal
Instigator and sponsor