I believe that whuffie CAN bring you financial gain, but the people that have high whuffie levels aren’t focussed on that goal. People who have good whuffie are looking to contribute to the community and to make it a better place for everyone.

In turn, they are recognised as a good community member which in itself can act as marketing and lead more people to you. I think the important factor to consider when deciding whether to accept a project is whether you actually believe in it, whether you want to do it and what impact you could have. If you have all of those things, you’ll give it your all and people will appreciate you more for it. Someone who only ever contributes to projects they think will give them the most visibility won’t be sustainable…

Just my little thought bubbles anyway

As far as I can see, whuffie actually boils down to just two things: knowledge/expertise + reputation/visibility.

Or learning stuff plus sharing it with people.

Seeking “whuffie” for its own sake can look like just being motivated by money, or by wanting to look important. Seems best to focus on the learning and the sharing, and not to be embarrassed about self-marketing in an age of mass communication.

And it may be harder to eat without whuffie in general, but that doesn’t mean every single person needs it in order to eat- Gen Y is so into generalising everything! We’re all different and some of us do fine without fitting in

I am glad YOU are on the “Most Influential Female Bloggers” lists at http://northxeast.com/general/nxe%E2%80%99s-fifty-most-influential-female-bloggers
http://blog.go2web20.net/2008/07/women-in-technology-50-female-bloggers.html
http://readwriteweb.com/archives/blogher_who_are_your_favorite.php etc.

Please join my newest “The Best Female Bloggers” project
TOP-WOMEN.MINI-NEWS.COM

The idea behind it is Absolutely Unique:
Starting the *Ads-FREE Web* Revolution!!!

Tip:
Ads-Free publishing can bring you more “WHUFFIE”, – read money! – than any advertising!
If you are the FIRST!

Please also note this is NOT about linking to your RSS feed: You need to apply for your space on Mini-News.com personally. It’s FREE! However, there is a “25 people only” limit..

The space is allocated on the “First-applied First-granted” basis! And YOU are among the FIRST people to whom I’m telling about it!!!

Maybe “whuffie” can’t be a quantifiable thing, but a sort of symbol-making engine. As an engine, it’s never static, and instead churns out meanings or symbols.

I’m thinking of this in relation to Jack Shafer’s recent Slate article, “What’s really killing newspapers: They’re no longer the best providers of social currency.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2196485)

His definitions of social currency, gleaned from a number of sources (including a study by the Associated Press, “A New Model of News”) sound a lot like whuffie, down to the idea that you accrue it, and that it’s meaningless unless you spend it. Newspapers, he argues, used to be read to accrue social currency, which you then spent or traded elsewhere (around the water cooler, with your neighbors, at the coffee shop, etc.). The whole business was (is) symbolic.

That’s what makes me think that social currency and whuffie are like engines that produce meaning — sort of like capital. Sitting on a pile of money is useless — the only way money can be useful is if you let it circulate (it “works” for you), and it’s the same for social currency/ whuffie. (Some people are better than others at making their currency work for them, too.)

But since neither social currency nor whuffie are *actually* money, they’re simply highly symbolic (i.e., just like money).

If that’s the case, then we can maybe start to argue about what the systems are within which whuffie or currency circulates. And I think this is where everyone gets their back up in one way or another, since we’ve all had experiences with good and bad systems, with pecking orders and hierarchies and so on. Whuffie is promiscuous and isn’t by definition going to stay “true” to merit. Just like money, it could care less whether you spend or earn it at the whorehouse (metaphorically speaking) or working altruistically for a cause.

As a symbol-making engine, whuffie isn’t the system itself, but it operates in systems (good and bad). It’s not a thing (like a title or a status, or even the thing you buy), and like money, it’s most fun (useful, too) when it’s made and spent continuously.

It’s symbolic, so even if we never get to eat it, we’ll surely be talking about it forever. …Just like money.

Sorry about the long PS, but currency of any sort is very thought-provoking.

Since utilitarianism, as it is, is “a general term for any view that holds that actions and practices should be evaluated on the basis of the aggregate social benefits and the aggregate social costs associated with the actions or practices. In any given situation, the proper or ‘right’ action or practice is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits (or lowest net costs) for society as a whole” (Velazquez), without this clarification I was merely biting my tail on the reasoning and being ambiguous all around.

I’ve been looking around for something like a Whuffie (boring desc: currency quantifiable measurement) and have come across a number of different mappings of currency to clout/reputation for individuals.

One common element that I found is that a number of people believe that there exists some quantifiable method out there; we just have not found a universal one as yet.

The biggest problem has been to describe how things are measured. In one paper by Claire Gubbins and Daniel Andriessen, Defining Social Capital http://is.gd/1khS, suggests a ladder/hierarchy of metaphors that build on each other:
- Starting with Contacts (end-points),
- Links to contacts,
- Paths across links,
- Networks of paths,
- Channels of networks each for a purpose,
- Resources describing content per channel
- Capital applying a value to a resource

While they describe these metaphors quite well, they don’t offer any specific mapping (beyond the obvious) or math functions between the levels.

Beyond just what one set of numbers adds up to what is if there is such a “universal” scale of measurement, or if we need exchange rates between one person and another (ie. the value is relative, for every person)

I know this sounds quite analytical above, and I’m changing my mind of this sort of analytical measurement is so important, but I’m just sharing some of what I found.

I’d be thrilled to see what you have coming up in the Whuffie factor.

-rawn

Michelle’s blog somehow touches this in the sense that she clearly states she decided to help someone in hope she will find another gig, and later she clarifies she loves Austin and that is why she keeps posting, photographing, etc about with frequency. From my point of view the work she was doing in the first place was no whuffie point gainer but a utilitarian method to obtain something in the near future, whether her passion for Austin and the ways she do because of it is.

IMHO Linkedin, Facebook, and other social networks were not thought based on whuffie or any other moral value (is whuffie? I’ve gotta read the book) but on utility, utility for the users and for the owners. There are other venues which might have whuffie at is core (BARCamp is one that comes to mind, HeroCamp is another without doubt).

Life is but a mere balance between moral and utility (no one leaves on spirit only -pun intended-), everyone must be brave enough in order to differentiated the moral from the utility of every action one takes and take them sincerely as for what they are (moral or utilitarian).

Regards,

Mario

Do the right thing. Always, regardless of whuffie or money or whatever. When I do something, it is because I am compelled. I don’t think of money or whuffie or anything. When I blog, it helps me sleep. When I volunteer, it makes me feel sane. The companies I am promoting are ones I like. I try to do things I’m passionate about that are beautiful in my eyes. No one could see it and I’d still do it.

At least, that’s what makes me happy. Maybe these are not mutually exclusive concepts, but a purely utilitarian approach to life (for money, fame, whuffie etc.) seems to deprive us of the joy of simply making something beautiful.