The way I see it, internet communications are the perfect learning vehicle (informal OR formal) for free agents. Free agent-types like using the internet to find out stuff and talk to each other.

But free agents are just one very small subset of the world. Perhaps they are growing in number, but surely that number will be limited to people who posses a) a stand-alone, transferable, and marketable skill; b) the right personality for the peculiarities of this way of life and c) ideally a spouse with a steady pay cheque.

Frankly, I'm not so interested in the free agents. I think they will take care of themselves. I am interested in the people within organizations, because that is likely where my work will be.

Stuff changes when you try to organize what has been free-flowing. That's what I wonder about... the irony and the challenge of formalizing the informal.

Some questions:
a) How/Can "the organization" set up informal learning structures that are vital and full of life and fed by genuine interest. Examples please?

b) What we're calling 'informal learning' (what I call exploring or finding out)comes for me in bursts. When I want to learn something more thouroughly, I sign up for a course because I need the external structure.

So (assuming for the moment that other people share this attribute), what role do the informal learning structures play within the organization?

c) What about the people who are not natural researchers/networkers/web users? (Lead a horse to water and all that). Is there anything in a web-mediated interaction that is so compelling for them?

and
d)Facebook? I just don't get it. What human needs/qualities are feeding that? Can we convert whatever it is into a more learning-ful interaction?