Forums for a civic process -- Seattle Center

Forums for Seattle Center? This should be interesting. It's nice to see that the Forum has some starter content. I also like that there are basic guidelines posted, though I would have made the guidelines a "sticky" post in ideas forum, rather than it being a standalone post in a different forum. While we're talking about suggestions, I also would have waited on the blog post until all of the forum topics as outlined in the welcome message were live. Anyway, I could go on about community building via blogs or forums, but that is way too close to my day job :P

Tech / community strategy aside, it is encouraging to see outreach through a variety of means -- open house sessions, blogs, and now forums. I do wonder how all of this is going to work from a macro level. For example, there are meetings posted (as a pdf) on the 21st Century page of Seattle Center. This schedule lists a "Public Forum for Organizations" on January 30th. The blog, in reference to the same meeting, says that it is a proposal deadline for anyone (individuals and organizations) to submit a one page summary vision for air time with the committee. Based on the content recently posted in the Forums and on the blog post talking about the meeting, it is clear that the public meeting on the 30th was not solely for organizations as originally stated on the schedule. How does an inconsistency such as this get resolved with the venues (blogs, forums, website) present? Is there a definitive place for all of the information? Better yet, is there a way to ensure consistency of information across venues?

Something else to consider...the Forums seem to imply that they exist for capturing other ideas / summaries not already raised (in meetings or elsewhere) while having content for people to discuss. If that is the case, I'm unclear as to why there was a deadline for proposals in the first place if it would all happen online anyway. Granted, I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of the overall plan, so this may make a lot more sense than what I've seen so far.

Of course, I realize that what Seattle Center is undertaking with the blog , and now forums, is still a work in progress. While there are things I would personally change with what I've seen, ultimately I am excited that folks at the Seattle Center are bringing innovation and leadership to a new civic process for the 21st Century. I look forward to working with folks to bring about even more amazing things for all of us.

First public meeting for Seattle Center redesign

Wednesday night I attended the first public hearing for reimagining Seattle Center for the next 20 years. Though I was skeptical at first, being one of the few dozen or so folks there not affiliated with the work thus far, and not to mention me being one of the few individuals under the age of 40, I liked what I saw.

Just to recap how the public hearing was organized, when you first enter the Lopez and Fidalgo rooms at Seattle Center there is someone there to greet you as you sign in. They give you a quick overview of how the evening will proceed -- there are stations throughout the room for public comment, volunteers who have helped with the process thus far will be at each station to talk with you about your ideas, a brief presentation will occur halfway through the evening, and the overall goal is to gather as much public input as possible. Essentially this was how Collaborate! was organized, though this iteration put forward by Seattle Center seemed to take it up a notch.

At each station, Seattle Center provided a backgrounder of the topic area (transit, events, specific buildings, etc) being discussed at that station. A map of the center, with the related parts highlighted as appropriate, were presented alongside any conceptual images that may exist. In the case of a revised theater district on Mercer Street, concept images of a revamped Intiman and Reparatory theaters were presented. Additionally at each station there were questions posted on a large sheet (about 10 feet high and 4 feet wide) for people to place note cards as responses to the questions. Participants could also take a dot to voice support for an existing comment if they so chose. The questions typically followed the same pattern -- what draws you currently, what would you change, and other.

In terms of the volunteers at each station, not only were they intimately knowledgeable about the topic area at hand, but they would help flesh out suggestions from participants. Sometimes the volunteers would actually write down the ideas described by the participants themselves. While this may seem to be antithetical to the notion of having the people submit their own words into the process, from what I was able to see / overhear, the volunteers were very good at ensuring that the words captured on the cards accurately reflected the intent of the participant. This leads me to believe this method of data collection was not so much as to serve as a filter as it was to help capture the ideas of people who might not be able to write for whatever reason. To some degree this may have also been used to help standardize the handwriting so it would be easier for people to read.

All in all, I liked the event. That being said, there is always room for improvement. First and foremost, food and beverages should be available at meetings of this nature. Given the time of day (5:30 - 8:00 pm) this might help keep people engaged and alert. Also, it would be great to have (and this may be in the works already) each of the "stations" appear as separate blog posts to engage people online. Following on the theme of technology, what about having interactive kiosks with webcams and or sound recording (think podcasts) for people to give their feedback and thoughts about the work thus far? A recent PBS documentary did something similar to this. In a way it's similar to the work of StoryCorps or Densho. These means of recording (video or audio) could be something stationary or it could be more mobile to get a wider range of participants. Also, folks may want to consider posting the video footage and still pics of the event online. Using existing services like Soapbox, YouTube, Flickr or the like would be fine to help implement it quicker, and also it enables it to be spread throughout a wide variety of blogs (mine, for example, but hopefully some with more traffic -- lol)

Anyway, thanks to all the volunteers who helped last night. And thanks to all who planned the first public hearing. Even though I get the sense that the next meeting will be similar, I look forward to attending. Don't worry, I won't try to skew the data towards things I already voiced support for -- multi-seasonal amphitheater for more intimate music and entertainment performances, a farmers market, more walkable, more bikeable, transit hub, etc. Instead, I hope to have more ideas fleshed out around this notion of helping to make Seattle Center a "first date kind of place." (My thanks go out to Karen Keist who helped me think of it during our discussion of open space at the center). I should have more ideas around what this actually looks like at the next meeting.

For additional coverage, check out Seattle Center's blog, or the KOMO-TV Report

Achieving that flow state for user experiences

What would happen if you took great game design principles and applied them to product development for something other than games? Would you get a really fun and engaging product? Or would you get a product that completely misses the mark? I don't know the answer just yet, but I suppose that is one of the good things about iterative product development :-)

In terms of what I've been able to gather so far, there's a few different variations on the theme with regards to this general notion of flow and or fun. According to social architect Amy Jo Kim, the elements to pay attention to with regards to game design include:

• Collecting
• Points
• Feedback
• Exchanges
• Customization

Another writer on this topic of games and design, DanC, has these elements listed:

• Action
• Blackbox
• Feedback
• Mastery

According to a recent report about the motivational pull of video games (pdf), the following criteria are listed:

• Autonomy
• Competence
• Presence
• Intuitive
• Relatedness

All of these items seem to be related to this broader concept of flow. Flow is perhaps best described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi where he lists the following as the principle elements that facilitate this space:

• Challenge
• The ability to concentrate on that challenge
• Clear goals
• Immediate feedback
• Deep involvement on the part of the participant
• Sense of control over one's actions
• The concern for one's self decreases
• Sense of time is skewed

To put it in a more user friendly way, Karim Lakhani and Robert Wolf (pdf) describe flow as a state that occurs when "a person's skills matches the challenge of a task." Put another way, it is when your skills, experiences and knowledge all sync up to a particular situation at hand and you are in the moment when you are at your best.

Wouldn't it be great if all the users of your products and or services felt like that all the time? Seems to me that elements of flow or good game design need to be factored into the overall product development cycle.

Building upon what I've encountered so far (I'm still going through Csikszentmihalyi's book on flow, among some other references) I would say that for product development that helps prospective and current customers achieve that flow state, the following items must be considered throughout the entire design process:

Assuming that a user does a specific action and something happens behind the scenes, the following items should be considered:

• Feedback
• Personalization
• Connection
• Mastery
• Optimization

In the case of a discussion forum where someone posts a message this flow state could look like this:

Feedback -- Message appears in location selected

Personalization -- This could be as simple as providing a personalized greeting acknowledging contribution in your native language, listing your name, etc in a conversational style or as complex as a personalized email doing the same.

Connection -- Provide links to other people who posted similar content or who are interested in similar content

Mastery -- Enable a notion of leveling tied specifically to the action of posting. The more messages a user posts, the more adept they are at the interface. Acknowledge the time (no matter how small) it takes for them to post a message. Something as simple as listing the message count, or something as complex as a reputation system tied to the frequency of content creation could be implemented here.

Optimization -- "Leveling up" needs to open up new opportunities for folks to do more. As a particular individual masters a specific action, let them do more to further optimize their experience. It could be skipping steps in a workflow because they know how to best do it, or it could be granting of additional options for them in posting a message.

...

Zooming back down to my day to day with blogs and forums...my sense is that much of this already exists to varying degrees. Granted, it could tie together more. For that matter, it could even tie together flow states for both blogs and forums. There's likely a lot more here...so I appreciate any thoughts and comments folks have on all this. thanks!


(crossposted)

Equivalent to 18 sell-out Seahawks games

I'm reading through some backgrounder information (pdf) about revamping Seattle Center for this day and age and came across an amazing stat.

Each year serving more than three times the annual number of visitors as Safeco Field and the equivalent of 18 sell-out regular football seasons at Qwest Field, Seattle Center is the state's top attraction.

I knew it drew in lots of people, but that's pretty impressive. To me, that just underscores the importance of holistic and regional transit solutions around that area. Unfortunately, with what is currently being discussed with regards to the viaduct vs the tunnel, I'm not hopeful that a regional solutions are even on the table.

Seattle Center is blogging too!

Blogs are popping up all over the place ;-) Seattle Center is the latest to get into it. I think this is a great way of opening things up, especially as folks are focused on revamping Seattle Center.

Loosely related, on a whim some colleagues and I started talking about the notion of revamping the center for this day and age. To my surprise, I was pleased to learn that folks are talking about this right now. While it seems like I won't be actively serving on the committee (as there's been a blue ribbon group meeting for awhile already) there looks to be some options for plugging in nonetheless. Granted, the existing ways do not seem to be all that compelling in terms of really getting input into the process, however it is a start. Looks like I'll need to buckle down with folks to actually engage in a meaningful way about changes facing this civic institution.

Seattle Works blog

Yay for blogging! With the recent trip to the Gulf Coast by some incredible volunteers from Seattle Works, we officially launched our blog. Not only is it great to get more visibility to the incredible things underway, but it's also helped me refocus on blogging. Expect to see more of me here on this site, and here (for work related things)

slowing down, snowing down

Last night during the rush hour commute, the Puget Sound region was hit again by snow, ice and rain. Needless to say, it did not make for a fun commute. After spending about two hours waiting for a bus that never showed, I ended up hitching a ride with others trying to make it back to Seattle. Were it not for the generosity of Marcel, I don't know how I would have gotten home as the buses I could have taken either never showed or they were stuck in the ice.

While his kindness is not surprising, I still wonder why shared experiences, or shared difficulties seem to bring people closer together. A few years ago, I wrote upon this a bit...here's a little snippet from 2005:

Another example of how the unexpected can be a good thing would be what happens in Seattle when it snows. First, it rarely snows, and if it does, it rarely sticks around. So it is not that surprising that people in this city get all "weird" when it comes to snow. For days the top news story was the snow. This overall weirdness though, is somewhat unique though. At work last week when it snowed, the focus of everyone in the office was elsewhere. People worried about how to get home, some had to get their kids from school, others looked in awe at the big fluffy flakes falling from the sky. Regardless of how individuals reacted, there was this overall giddiness in the office. Likewise, it seemed that there was this sense of wonder for all experiencing the snow. Just a few years ago when it did snow heavily and stay, the city of Seattle literally shut down. Hills turned into ski slopes. Neighborhood restaurants never looked so packed. The place down the corner from me turned into a ski chalet, offering free hot chocolate to those braving the weather...

...this notion of surprise and shared experience seems key in terms of bringing people together. It seems to shake people momentarily from their day to day routine, and we are all then able to look at the world with a sense of wonder, possibility and play.

Following the big windstorms in Nov 2006, a local columnist also commented on this notion of community here

All of this makes me wonder, are we *too* distracted in this day and age of constant activity and connectedness to really be connected to one another as a community? Kathy Sierra wrote recently on how our flow seems to get disrupted with all the noise of mail, feeds and the like. Do we all just need a good old fashioned "snow day" once in awhile to better ground us so we truly are better connected to one another? As much fun as that might be, that's not a good longterm solution. I get the feeling that this magic formula of community through serendipity has to do more with this notion of flow and play in everyday life. Now, if I only knew how to bottle it ;-)

(cross posted On community...)

My name is Brian...

and I'm cheating on my blog solution. I admit it, I've been blogging elsewhere.

I seem to be in a period of transition -- blogs, work, etc. For the handful of folks interested, I'm posting thoughts over at Spaces hereand here. Oh, I'm also on del.icio.us here if you want to know what's been catching my eye.

Where and when will all this stuff sort itself out? I'm not sure just yet. At the moment, I seem to be leaning towards Spaces with the whole Messenger gleaming integration...but who knows. I'll continue to post here time to time (as well as all the other places) until I sort this all out.

Reading list from my summer break

Vacation is a great time for reflection and reading. Over the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to finish several books including:

Naked Conversations -- light reading on business blogging basics. didn't really learn anything new, other than background info on blogging at MS

Free World -- started a while ago, and finished it on the train from NYC to Baltimore. Rather interesting and timely in light of all the happenings in the Middle East and all

The Long Tail -- expansion of an earlier article posted in Wired. Still have several questions with regards to the role of The Long Tail and local civic or political life. Choice is one thing when it comes to buying things, but connecting with others is different, especially when civics and politics are factored into the equation.

Republic.com -- Been meaning to read this ever since I picked up Bowling Alone years ago. This dives deeper into some of my unresolved questions from reading The Long Tail, while addressing broader legal and societal concerns.

Kafka on the Shore -- pure "fluff" when compared to everything else I've been reading. There's not too many fiction writers I follow, but Murakami is one of them. Beatifuly written, disturbing as always, and difficult to put down.

Affiliation as it relates to reputation

I first noticed it with Yahoo! Avatars and their sponsorship of WorldCup. Mixed in with jerseys from various teams, you could choose your cause such as One.org, Breast Cancer awareness, World AIDS day, and the like. Now according to a recent article, YouthNoise and Meez are getting into this game as well.

YouthNoise, a community meant to inspire and empower young people to catapult their passion and idealism into movements that sustain the planet, teamed up with Meez, a company that helps people create their own 3D avatars. For some time, Meez has hosted virtual clothing by real life brands. It makes sense that virtual cloting for causes would take shape.

All this has me thinking about one's overall reputation and representation online. With services like Yahoo! Avatars, Meez, Acheivements on Xbox, or even tagging on 43 People, isn't affiliation with a group or cause an important part of reputation? The actions that done by people (online or off), the time they spend with a product or service, and the content (information) they share all help others gauge the relevance of content found online. Does it not go to reason that one's affiliations can also play a role in helping others gauge the value of the contributions of another online?

Also, what of overall preferences? What else could be shown/discovered to help provide people with a greater context with who they find online? What would this look like? Where would it show? To whom would it be shown? Also, what would it look like if you and others could upload tags/clothing/etc for others to see? What sort of control would you have over your profile according to others? Is that even a concern?

Certainly there comes a point when too much information right off the bat is just not useful at all. But what is that threshhold? Who determines it? What may be relevant information for you in evaulating content contributed by someone online may be worthless to me.

Anyway, lots of thoughts to ponder. Thankfully, it's still early with all of this and we're all just getting started.

back, and almost ready to play

After a trip to the East Coast to visit family and friends (Boston, NY, upstate NY, Baltimore), I'm now back in Seattle catching up with the latest happenings.  Right now, I'm checking out  Windows Live Writer, and it seems pretty cool.  Supposedly it is well integrated with maps such as Windows Live Local.  Let's see if that's the case...

[map deleted]

Apparently it's actually branded as a Microsoft Virtual Earth map, rather than Windows Live Local.  Hmmm.  Might just be weird branding stuff.  At any rate,  I think I'll keep experimenting with this tool to see what all it can do.

Update -- Apparently the image upload, at least with this map, is not working though Blogger supports image uploads.  I have deleted the map in hopes of publishing this post.

A Netroots Victory

I haven't followed the Lamont v Lieberman primary race too closely, but from what I understand, there is no denying the impact of the internet in securing Lamont's primary win over Lieberman. This is quite exciting for someone who has followed the impact of online communities on local politics -- it is all about community afterall.

Related links:
CNet -- Lieberman defeat a win for 'Netroots' politics?
YouTube Nedheads group
The Nation -- Ned Lamont's Digital Constituency

The Long Tail on the local level?

I've been reading Chris Anderson's The Long Tail recently, and I can't help but wonder what the impact of the long tail is on communities, boradly speaking. On the one hand, the whole notion of people finding their niche is a great exaple of communities coming together. On the other hand, if everyone finds their own individual niche, does that encourage balkanization? What happens to communities on the local level? Perhaps the book addresses this later. In the mean time, I'm still pondering how the Long Tail translates on a broader, societal level.

Card readers and eye contact

Kudos to my wife for pointing this out, but in recent shopping trips at Target, Safeway and QFC she noticed that how card readers were used impacted the amount of eye contact between the cashier and the shopper. Specifically:

In Target, the card reader takes the card into a machine, and gives the purchaser instructions on what to do. The cashier, without anything to do, bags the items being purchased. The only eye contact that may occur is when the cashier turns the receipt to the purchaser (provided it's not placed directly in the bag)

In Safeway, the overall experience is similar. While the card reader machine does not take the card during the transaction, all instructions are posted on the little card reader screen. Interaction with the cashier is minimal, though they make it a point to thank you by name (provided you have one of their club cards). Presumably this is meant to personalize the experience, however if you have a difficult to prounounce name, it becomes more of a hindrance to that personal touch.

In QFC, the checkout experience is most varied. On the one hand, they have the self-check out stands where you do not need to interact with another human being. On the other hand, the check out experience in a line by a credit card is the most personable of the three stores sampled. Instead of sliding the card and following all instructions on a screen, to run the credit card, you give the card to the cashier. The cashier then hands you a slip to sign, and you return it to them. Though it seems to vary on the cashier, whether or not they check your signature, the amount of eye contact, and potential eye contact puts both Target and Safeway to shame.

There are no profound insights here regarding credit card readers, or customer loyalty programs. Rather, the only observation here is on how tech can help or hinder actual interaction between people depending on how it is used.

DOPA passed the House

Yikes! The US. House of Representatives passed the Deleting Online Predators Act. should this pass the US Senate, this will drastically change the way people connect and share information with one another online.

Seventeen and Myspace team up for CGM, PSAs

Enough acronyms in there? ;-) Myspace and Seventeen Magazine have partnered to solicit consumer generated media, in the forms of public service announcement videos, on "an issue that's important to you." The winner will be profiled on Myspace and in Seventeen.

With the popularity of YouTube, it's no surprise that people are wanting a piece of the consumer generated media pie. Having it focused on a public service announcement on an issue that the creators care about, that sounds a lot like the Current TV model. More importantly though, the generational target audience of both Seventeen and Myspace have shown to be socially conscious and technically savvy at the same time. I'll even be bold enough to say that more initiatives like this (merging of CGM and a social conscience) will become the norm shortly.

Wikipedia founder moves into poiltics

On July 4th, founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales announced a new initiative to provide wikis for the political sphere.

This website, Campaigns Wikia, has the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives who may not share much else, but who share the idea that they would rather see democratic politics be about engaging with the serious ideas of intelligent opponents, about activating and motivating ordinary people to get involved and really care about politics beyond the television soundbites.

While there is certainly an audience of wiki-philes and political types (nod to Church of the Customer), what of everyone else? How do you engage the majority of folks who are seemingly too busy or disinterested to bother participating civically? I don't claim to have the magic bullet, but I'm certainly trying a few different things to get folks more involved locally.

Loosely related (nod to Ypulse) here's some recent research questioning whether or not cynicism leads to apathy.

Ken Lay's death and Wikipedia

This recent article is amusing. Isn't this the point of a wiki? Information is updated as it becomes available. How is this different than say a wire service and it's early reports?

Buffett and the Gates Foundation invests in our future

Given my community focus, it is hard to not think about all of the possibilities with the recent news surrounding the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Not only will Bill Gates be focusing the majority of his attention on the foundation in 2008, but now Warren Buffett is donating the majority of his wealth to the foundation. Kudos to the Gates' and Mr. Buffett for immensely inspirational work.

Of course, with my great hope for the future work of the Gates Foundation, it also raises many questions as to the changing face of philanthropy in general. Will there be consolidations between foundations? Will others divert their energies to other causes? Will this be a dis-incentive to non-billionaires or millionaires? Or could it inspire more to give?

Can the 800 pound gorilla survive the onslaught?

With increased scrutiny by media (here and here), Myspace seems to be holding up to the security concerns. They may prove to even withstand election-year politics by Congress. The big question that remains is whether or not they can survive the hackers that inevitably come with being a rather large site with a target on it's back.

Focus on the end game

I've been working a lot with changing community technology lately, and while I am a firm believer in communities being more than the sum of the technology that brings people together, the tech also matters a great deal. Think of a coffee shop, for example, being replaced by one of those automated coffee machines. While you can still get a cup of coffee, it certainly leaves a different taste in your mouth. Robert Scoble also talks of a similar notion -- of using the right tools for the job, to describe the benefits of podcasting as opposed to say a blog or RSS feed. Why mention any of this?

For anyone looking at technology and community -- pay special attention to your end goals (there are many ways to serve a cup of coffee). Every decision, technical and otherwise, will drastically impact the community in any number of ways.

What is community?

Working with communities, online and offline, I find it's helpful to make sure there's a common language from which to build. Take the notion of community, for example. What exactly does it mean? For me, community is the end result of purposeful interactions between people over time around shared interests or activities.
I'm curious as to what others think about this working definition of community. Post away in the comments :-)

*Update*
After a conversation with a friend of mine in Chicago, she was quick to point out that that alone will not make a community -- someone needs to initiate. Whether it's asking a question of others or holding some sort of event…something needs to help move the community forward.

i'm not dead yet...

just been buried. latest projects include wikis, forums, mapping and communities among other things including leadership development, and Seattle Works Day.

there's lots to catch up on -- will be getting back into the mix of things shortly.

Social Software for Social Change?

Kara Jessella asked recently whether or not sites like MySpace and Flickr can be a valid tool for progressive social change in a recent AlterNet article, especially in light of who may be owning the tech infrastructure behind it.

The more I work with online communities, and the more I explore different technologies, the more I believe it depends on the end goal. How do you define social change? Is it that a certain piece of legislation is changed? Is it a certain political outcome? How are folks defining success when talking about social change? Is it staying true to a particular set of beliefs?

For me, it's really about moving the ball forward. If tech helps you get more supporters, greater visibility, or anything that helps add to the momentum that you have, it's a good thing. Social change is a rather incremental process; it's rarely something that happens overnight, and only with long hours, persistence and dedication will it occur. As we all remember the legacy and incredible work of Coretta Scott King, her work (and that of her late husband) remains unfinished to this day. Yes, advances have been made, and hopefully they will continue, but there was not one isolated event that allowed people to say, "Ok, we're done now."

Tech is great. It makes things a lot easier in terms of communication, organizing and the like. Heck, it already has opened up new ways of organizing. We need not look too far to see how mobile communications have impacted things from politics to terrorist attacks. As with any tool, it can be a good thing, a bad thing, or neutral by design. How we use it will ultimately determine it's worth.

Related link:
8by1 -- think of this as 43things focused specifically on making the world better

If a picture is worth a thousand words...

After reading Nancy White's post A Few Flickr Flights of Fancy I got to thinking about what thousands of pictures are worth? Too much to think about? How about something more focused on a particular topic or population? After talking with the International District Housing Alliance's program manager for the Wilderness Inner-city Leadership Development Youth Program about the Community Perspectives Project, I started thinking about the power of photo sites like flickr for social, civic, and overall change.

To understand the thinking behind this, it probably helps to understand a bit more about the Community Perspectives Project. Briefly this project was to engage stakeholders of the International District (residents, youth, visitors, business owners, etc) in a dialogue about their perspectives of the neighborhood. The role of technology came into play through ComNET and Photovoice. ComNET stands for Computerized Neighborhood Environmental Tracking. Photovoice is a tool that gets cameras into the hands of people often left out of the decision making process. Surveys, focus groups and community presentations were also a component of this project. My main interest in this project centers on how they essentially repurposed the tech towards an engaging, social project. (I also think this is just a great idea in general)

Now does it make more sense about where I'm going with the whole flickr notion? The possibility that I see with Flickr has already been realized to an extent, given MoveOn's forray into this. I'd be curious to see what would happen if you take it a step further -- do something like Photovoice where the photographers collaborate, put their thoughts, visions and such into their own words and visuals. Have them go through a vetting process and the like to determine which is the best photo, and all. It's not so much about the tech, but how people interact with one another as supplemented by the tech. Have debates, have discussions about which photo should be selected for a wider viewing, or whatever else is appropriate. Really it's bringing people together, with the assistance of tech, and the end result of building community.

Another way of looking at this is how any photo sharing service plugged into a blog or something could be a new iteration of Photovoice or the family photo albums that users upload on the original Sims site? Not only would the groups who created the pics be able to share, but others can chime in with comments and all too. It becomes more of a dynamic conversation rather than static images. Images are powerful because of how they affect us as individuals and as a community.

oops...

it seems in my excitement around Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday, I got a little excited and jumped the gun last week. oops. at least i get another chance to do good.

Turns out i didn't do any good that day anyway, at least not in the Benjamin Franklin sense. Today is looking better so far. Getting a project up and running to 1) find out what people would most like help with, and 2) pairing them up with folks in the community to help them. I know there are lots of sites that help with this already -- showing you your goals, people with similar goals, and also those who've done them. This is sort of in that vein, but smaller in scale, and more of a personalized touch to foster maximum interaction between the parties involved. Should be an interesting little experiment. I'll report back as things get going.

Later today, I'm also meeting with someone who ran a program connecting youth, tech and seniors in Seattle. Go here for a video summary of the project (real). More detailed description below:

International District Housing Alliance Community Perspectives 6/27/2005
A story of how WILD (Wilderness Inner-city Leadership Development), a youth program within the International District Housing Alliance program has used technology and a partnership between local youth and elders to strengthen the voice of residents in the international District neighborhood. In an approximately thirty square block neighborhood where more than forty languages are spoken, historically it has been difficult for residents effectively speak for themselves in the larger City system. See how local youth and elders use photography, multi-language interviews, and Personal Desk Assistants to use diversity as an asset and work toward removing language as a barrier to democracy.

A Day On...

First off, I fully admit I've been a hypocrite today. As many in the US today recognized and celebrated the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with a day-on, I was at the office.

Regardless, I applaud everyone who is honoring King's legacy by volunteering in their community today. There can be no greater tribute for a man who not only worked towards civil rights in this country, but later on in his life saw the need to oppose the Vietnam War, and start a campaign against poverty. I'm not a historian, nor am I an expert in all things related to Dr. King, but to me his work seems to be that of love for this community we call humanity. Regardless of color, or social status, etc, his words and actions show an incredibly deep love the human family. By giving back to our local communities with a day on, you too can honor this legacy.


Some relevant links for today's MLK Jr. Celebrations:

Heed Dr. King's words, Atlanta mayor urges
Stanford University -- Articles by the Staff of the
King Papers Project
MLK Jr Speech, "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (text and mp3)
The King Center
I May Not Get There with You : The True Martin Luther King, Jr. reviews

Happy Birthday Ben!

In the spirit of this space, I want to wish Benjamin Franklin a wonderful 300th birthday. While none of my accomplishments are even remotely on the scale of his, it is good to know that we both seem to have a passion for technology and civics. Here's an article from the Seattle Times talking about celebrations planned in his honor.

Also, I thought this was a nice little blurb about Benjamin Franklin and civics in general:

Civic Visions tells the story of Franklin’s involvement with the founding of several key philanthropic, educational and civic institutions. From self-improvement, Franklin turned his attention to improving the community around him, asking himself, “What good shall I do this day.” Franklin, and a group of eleven working-class friends, known as the Junto were at the core of several Philadelphia institutions that were founded in the mid-18th century on behalf of the citizens of that city. Many of these institutions, such Pennsylvania Hospital and the University of Pennsylvania continue today, and the account of their founding will be told in this section, focusing on the universality of this group of new institutions— basic to any new, rapidly growing community.

from http://www.franklin300.com/exhibit.htm

What good shall I do today?

On the tip of my brain

It's one of those times again when the forces that be are throwing things at me hoping I get an "A ha" moment. Whether or not this is the right "A ha" remains to be seen, but this broad notion of creativity is hitting me like a hammer lately.

First -- I've been reading The Big Moo ever since Jackie Huba and Ben McConnel sent me an unexpected copy of the book. Basically, the two of them along with 31 other thought leaders submitted essays on how to be remarkable. Many of the essays also focused on this notion of creativity.

Second -- Working with a casual game community, I can't help but follow happenings with community and games. ARGs is probably the best manifestation of this that insprires me to dream. In my opinion, play goes hand in hand with creativity. And with the growing influence of entertainment in day to day life, this sort of thing will be even more relevant.

Third -- The latest Fast Company has an article on something called Breakthrough Cafes. Some related information can be found at Idea Champions. This sounds a bit reminiscent of discussions I've had around the notion of Mind Camp, or some sort of conference a la the Pyramid-type events put on by Seattle Works.

So...all of those things coming together around the same time makes me wonder...how can I take it to the next level? There are certainly opportunities with Seattle Works, ACLF, or the Guiding Lights Network. And no doubt there are countless more opportunities. It's just a matter of focusing on a handful, be successful, and move from there.

Politics and Media

It's amazing what slight differences there are between Seattle and Vancouver, BC. The other week, my partner and were up there to get away for a few days. We met up with some of her friends from school and ate well as usual.

What was interesting about this trip was that it was in the middle of campaign season for Canada's government. I don't know if this only happens during elections, but I found it fascinating that while channel surfing late at night, I stumbled across a channel devoted to campaigns throughout the provinces called CPAC. Think of this as a mix between the History Channel, CSPAN and a cable news station. From a casual observation of the programming it was a mix of debates, features with potential voters, and candidate interviews. The reporters asked substantive questions and there was enough information to provide some historical context. Makes me wonder what something like this would look like in the States?

Also related to media and campaign coverage, while reading the paper in a cafe, I stumbled across an interesting assertion in The Globe and Mail (reg required):

Internet blogs also seem to have less influence in an issues-based campaign. Blogs thrive in negative campaigns. They counter misleading statements by politicians, challenge party advertising messages and expose media manipulation, bias and errors. Highlights from their postings can end up influencing coverage in the mainstream media.

So far, it seems there's less for blogs to chew over when policies dominate the campaign and media coverage.

All this suggests there's enough different in media coverage of the first half of this campaign that, if the parties focus on the negative in January, they may be surprised to find it less effective than in the past.

Not following Canadian politics all that much, I can't speak to how accurate this statement is, though it does seem to make sense. That is, if a campaign or it's supporters aren't playing defense or offense the whole time, and instead focusing on the issues at hand, the tone of the conversation is vastly different. Now wouldn't that be novel!

Consolidation can lead to consumer wins

It seems like the frenzy over AOL has finally ended with exclusive deals with Google and AOL. This isn't quite like the Googlezon as predicted in EPIC 2014 (and EPIC 2015)but it certainly bears watching.

Indeed, Wired has a recent article on Who's Afraid of Google? Everyone. Sure, much of this is probably competition, some likely has to jealousy...but suffice to say the landscape has changed dramatically from just a few years back.

I have no idea what the future holds, but as more companies like Microsoft introduce services like Live.com to better compete against Google, ultimately it seems that the end user wins. As more folks find tools that help amplify their voice, the better. As more folks find others with similar ideas, the better. The challenge will always be how do you balance empowerment, self-selection, community and a vibrant marketplace/diversity of ideas and voices?

Not ready for prime time -- wikipedia

Every once in a while -- I have to remember -- not everyone is online as much as I am. Lots of folks do not know the difference between a wiki and a blog. Likewise, many do not see what the fuss about podcasts and RSS is all about. By and large, these incredible tools still seem to be in the early adopter phase.

Sure, mainstream journalism is talking about this stuff a lot more. Go to any website for a major metro paper and you're likely to find some reference to a blog, feed, or even podcasts. Still doesn't mean the average person gets it, or knows what to do with it.

A prime example of this would be the whole hoopla over Wikipedia and the JFK assasination. To recap briefly, there was a prank done on wikipedia related to the JFK assassination. No one let the person indicted in the prank in on the joke, and they responded with an Op-Ed to the USA Today. Much controversy arose, many wrote about it, even Nature got into the fray.

This whole fuss reminds me of a previous post on wikis. Currently, it seems that wikis are best used in certain circumstances with the right expectations from all users/consumers. The LA Times experiment was a prime example of what can go wrong with a wiki, while Esquire seemed to do all right. Additionally, the whole Seigenthaler issue seems to be one of not really understanding what a wiki is, or can be.

Until a *much* broader segment of the users on the web understand what any of this stuff (wikis, blogs, etc) can do, I would not be surprised if more flare-ups such as this one occur again.

Bowling Alone no more?

This may be a bit of a stretch regarding what most consider to be "technology” but it does relate to community and game play.

I was recently in a Barnes and Noble or Borders the other day and I was surprised to see an inordinate amount of games for sale alongside the best sellers. Sure, finding books on poker, crosswords and sudoku are to be expected, but actual board games such as Age of Empires or World of Warcraft (games that are traditionally computer / internet based games)? Not only that, but there were a lot of niche board games that I would only expect to read about on boardgamegeek.com All of this was rather unexpected. Of course, favorites such as Monoploy and Scrabble were readily found.

Maybe it's my naivety, or maybe it's been a long time since I set foot in a bookstore like that, but regardless, I think this is a good thing. Games are no doubt close to my heart -- perhaps more so after working with the casual game community for several years. There's something quite wonderful abut challenging oneself (in terms of things like crosswords and sudoku) and also about playing with others in games like chess, Monopoly or whatever.

A few years ago, Robert Putnam wrote about the decline of social capital in Bowling Alone. I don't know what the recent statistics are for bowling, but if the amount of games sold in stores is any indication, I would think that Putnam was wrong.

changing workforce demographics

As baby boomers begin to retire, and those in Gen Y enter the workforce, a whole variety of issues can manifest in the office. A few weeks ago, the USA Today did a story on Gen Y in the workforce. More recently, Business Week is getting into the game.

Loosely related, this reminds me of a recent conversation with a friend of mine who's worked with youth over the years. She discussed the ever changing role of tech -- how email is not too efficient in reaching youth, but IM and mobile phone use was. Also, we talked about some new studies looking at how people use their thumbs. For example, did you know that there's been studies showing that people are now favoring their thumbs when ringing a doorbell?

Seems to me that to really look at how tech and community intersect, I need to focus on what is going on with those still in middle school. (note to self, read Ito's research on mobile culture) Though they are already a force to be reckoned with, watch out when they take the international work/political/social world by storm.

out of the ordinary

I've been thinking about this topic for a bit -- this notion of surprise, and how what is unplanned can be a good thing in terms of community.

My first example would be at MindCamp and the lack of internet access. Though it was billed and planned as having a mesh network, things didn't work out as planned at first. Partly due to tech, partly due to lack of nodes in the mesh network, there just wasn't any connection at first. Though this did seem to put a hamper on things, I would argue that this fostered community because 1) people were forced to focus on the topics at hand 2) people had to interact with one another 3) you had an instant ice breaker of "gee, it sucks that there's no internet" 3a) shared, common experience. Apparently, others also believed the lack of access to the internet to be a good thing as evidenced by some feedback here on the wiki.

Another example of how the unexpected can be a good thing would be what happens in Seattle when it snows. First, it rarely snows, and if it does, it rarely sticks around. So it is not that surprising that people in this city get all "weird" when it comes to snow. For days the top news story was the snow. This overall weirdness though, is somewhat unique though. At work last week when it snowed, the focus of everyone in the office was elsewhere. People worried about how to get home, some had to get their kids from school, others looked in awe at the big fluffy flakes falling from the sky. Regardless of how individuals reacted, there was this overall giddiness in the office. Likewise, it seemed that there was this sense of wonder for all experiencing the snow. Just a few years ago when it did snow heavily and stay, the city of Seattle literally shut down. Hills turned into ski slopes. Neighborhood restaurants never looked so packed. The place down the corner from me turned into a ski chalet, offering free hot chocolate to those braving the weather.

In both scenarios, this notion of surprise and shared experience seems key in terms of bringing people together. It seems to shake people momentarily from their day to day routine, and we are all then able to look at the world with a sense of wonder, possibility and play.

A new kind of philanthropy

This has been brewing for some time, but it seems that people are wanting much more of a hands on approach when it comes to philanthropy. This is clearly evidenced by all of the ad-hoc Katrina relief efforts that Nancy White documented, and now it's getting some nice play in the New York Times. As if that were not enough, NBC Nightly News did a story last night on a teacher inspiring kids to give back, not just through money, but with their own time and energy.

"the kids realize, dollar for dollar, their money is going to be spent where they intended — to buy cows"

This whole notion of getting more hands on, of directing and driving where the money goes specifically illustrates how much people want to get involved and give back. Going back to my MindCamp experience, people are wanting to work on citywide Wifi plans to democratize and empower people with information. Others are wanting to provide tech assistance to nonprofits. All of these are very hands on means by which a person gives back to the wider community. Indeed, it's a model not unlike Social Venture Partners where people who donate become partners in the organization and then help nonprofits with different projects.

This drive for more of a hands on approach to connecting with communities is interesting. In some ways, it seems to be a response to the cynicism that has pervaded previous generations in that it says, "Ok, we don't trust the institutions but we trust that we can do this ourselves, and possibly even better." Call it one part exuberance with one part entrepreneurship. No matter what you call it though, it is a very powerful mix.

Implementation matters

OhmyNews has an article on "How Myspace.com Trumped Friendster" (via Influx Insights), underscoring the importance of implementation. In the case of MySpace and Friendster, here you had two services that were essentially the same. How each of them chose to implement their offerings varried, and ultimately determined their fates. It's interesting to think that in spite of the potential of Friendster, it basically came down to marketing, tapping into the most influential users, and nurturing that community. There, MySpace succeeded where Friendster failed.

Notes from (Mind) Camp

Hello Mother, Hello Father...greetings from (er, following) Mind Camp...

Yes, I was also a Mind Camp 1.0 attendee and participant. Several have already provided some nice summaries of the event (search for mindcamp1.0 tags at del.icio.us or technorati) so I won't dwell too much on them. It did intrigue me however that there seemed to be a great deal of folks interested in this broader notion of "community" or overall common good, through tech. If anything, that right there is worth the notion of holing up in an office building with 150 strangers for 24 hrs.

The first session I attended was on a discussion on the role of location based technology and community. Specifically, Kevin Moore from Microsoft wanted to know how to find interesting people with similar interests in a given area. Understandably, dodgeball, plazes, tribe, upcoming, tagging and city specific sites like Seattlest cropped up. The discussion then flowed to topics of data control, privacy, but also to what end do we want to use this information. Is it just for pure pleasure? Is it to help us have a better sense of who's around us by having a pseudo-bumper sticker of our interests and the like? Perhaps it's more purposeful than any of that by driving a community-driven marketplace for civic good, or combating our social dis-ease with one another. Or maybe, it's really a combination of all of this and other things not discussed like Playtime Inc or unimagined. At any rate, after the 45 minute session, I was intrigued at the possibilities for the rest of the event.

Later in the day, I pulled together a discussion on the role of game play, civics and technology. We started off the event with a round of Massively Multiplayer Thumb Wrestling just to get the energy flowing. What ensued after was a discussion that looked at flashmob-like events, the role of authenticity of message, organizations vs communities, reputation, surprise, play shifting expectations, and finding bridgers to connect otherwise unjoined networks...you know, just a few minor topics ;-)

Another session of note was Shelly Farnham's presentation on collaboration in the Katrina aftermath. Formerly of Microsoft Research, Shelly discussed the impact of Groove and the humanitarian relief efforts that followed Katrina in New Orleans. Some of the points focused on the intersection of the ad hoc and official relief groups, collaboration (or lack there of), and the *BIG* role of social capital were of special interest to me. The social capital aspect struck a chord with me; that people literally called those they personally knew for assistance to get something done was both exciting and sad at the same time. It's great that people connected with one another to get the assistance they needed. It's sad that the system failed to such an extent that people were left to fend for themselves. The question of how can technology help amplify the social networks of people with the end goal of assistance is a fabulous research direction. The role of helping to ensure those with limited social networks can also be effective is another key area in my book. Whether it's from the view point of those who need assistance and ensuring that they have the same opportunities and benefits as those with vast social networks, or whether it's from the standpoint of a relief worker who is new to the scene and needs to get something done...leveraging social networks for all is extremely important.

The other session that underscored community and the common good was wifi as a potential democratizing element. Korby Parnell and Jennifer Batten(?) talked of the possibilities of rolling out wifi in cities, partnering with libraries to essentially free information and overall help bridge the digital divide by making information and access more widely accessible. First, I love the concept, and I would personally like to have wifi wherever I go. I also love the intent of freeing more information, and helping people by getting information out there. However, I do not agree that these acts in and of themselves will make the divide disappear though. To me, providing the tools like wifi and access to solve social problems such as the digital divide is like saying providing a hammer and building materials will solve homelessness. Social problems facing our society, while they can certainly benefit from technology, cannot be solved by tech alone. Systematic issues as Nancy White raised, or the human factors as Liz Lawley pointed out, must be accounted for and built into the overall solution if we are to make headway on a rather complex social issue. I was a bit surprised at the level of defensiveness of some in the room at the notion that tech alone can't solve it, though at the same time, if one's experience is living proof of the bootstrap model, I can see how one might feel attacked by such an idea. Ultimately though, I was pleased that people are wanting to work towards solutions such as this. I am glad to know that there is this notion of common good and helping others in an increasingly fragmented world.

Aside from those sessions, it seemed others had this notion of connecting with others and helping people. For example, it was great to hear that folks like Kuang Chen and Alice Lin are also interested in using tech to help others in ways similar to NPower Seattle or OneNW. Through countless discussions with folks, it seems clear to me that there is this hunger for connection, for utilizing tech knowledge and expertise to help others, and simply put – community.

Overall it was a great conference. I liked the whole open space notion of it – you really get what you put into it. I met some wonderful people, and learned (unfortunately, after the fact) of more folks I'd like to talk with in greater detail. Thanks to the lock picking folks too -- great session. Now where do I get a kit? ;-) Anyway, I look forward to the next Mind Camp!

Community Design for Civics?

Jane McGonigal from Avant Game posted her ARG presentation from the Austin Game Conference.

In reading through the presentation, one particular item caught my attention:

Community design is the practice of creating new metaphors for collective experience in real life.

Aside from a similar naming convention to Social Design, there's something quite intriguing about this notion. Something about ARGs has always left me with a sense of possibility. After all, here are collective experiences that actively engage people from all different points of view while fostering creativity, play and fun. You have the active participants, the teams (as applicable) the game makers and the passerby-ers. In many ways, this is not unlike the current political or civic realm in our local communities.

That being the case, what can the civic realm learn about play, excitement, and creativity from ARGs?

Beyond "clicktivism"

The other day, I wrote about online petitions. Related to that, there is this broader notion that some might call "clicktivism." While I haven't found a formal definition, let's just say for the sake of discussion this is some sort of web element that gets people more involved. Generally, users are encouraged to donate, write a letter, or sign a petition online.

While it has been proven that this form of engagement can be very effective in raising money, writing letters or signing a petition not much seems to be done to tie it to the local level.

Writing letters, donating, and contacting elected officials are just a few ways of getting involved in the civic arena. What about attending public meetings to speak about an issue as illustrated in Norman Rockwell's painting? Don't want to go alone? What about enlisting a friend or a new acquaintence that you met while volunteering at a local organization?Alternatively, you can even just connect with strangers and talk about it with others as in the Conversation Cafe or Meetup model. While the last two do not really involve direct action, it does connect people within a community and lays the foundation for action by virtue of illustrating that you are not alone in your interests, and beliefs. You can then turn around and get some of them to go to an event or public meeting, or you can work on a project like, such as those run by youth at DoSomething.org.

If you are like me and want something more tangible than clicktivism, I encourage you to try any of the suggestions above. I'd love to hear how it goes for you, and also any other suggestions people might have.

What is your pain point?

Amit Asaravala makes a great point about not buying into the hype of new techology when working with clients.

The theme I keep arriving at over and over when I come across new Web 2.0 technologies -- or any new technologies for that matter -- is this: What is the problem I'm trying to solve in the first place?

This is a great warning of keeping the bigger picture in mind when working with a client to meet their goals. Whether you're working with a business, nonprofit or other entity they all have particular goals they want accomplished -- they all have particular pain points to address. Don't throw tech at a problem and expect them to be all excited.

Take wikis for example, they do a lot of great things. But are they right for all clients? Just look at the difference between Esquire and the LA Times with regards to wikis.

Looking back, the key takeways from the wiki examples still ring true for me. I also would add that in addition to knowing "the pain points" one must also have keep the bigger picture in mind: institutional buy-in, a plan, and ongoing refinement.

Tech and the bigger picture

With all of the energy around new tech nowadays, it's important for all of us to remember that tech is only part of it. As with any tool, it's success is dependent on a variety of factors including:

• the institutional buy-in driving the project
• the plan
• and ongoing refinement
  

Institutional support is by far one of the biggest drivers of success of any implementation of technology. Corporate intranets are a prime example of this. For example, if your boss and their boss do not participate, why would you? According to my cousin who works with a university partnership with city schools, if there is no institutional support on the part of city schools, the projects by and large fail.

As for tech being only so good as the plan, this is pretty basic. An organization might say, "I want to buy xbox 360s for everyone on my team." Well, unless there is a reason, cost justification, overall plan to use them in relation to the function of the job and the like, it's simply not going to fly.

Ongoing refinement. As anyone who has ever used technology knows, the second you buy it, there's a newer and better product on the market. This is not meant to say that you must always buy new tech (though upgrades should be part of the standard operating process), however, there needs to be someone, or a team of folks constantly evaluating the existing tech, what's out there on the horizon, and overall, trying to get the most out of what tech you do have as it relates to your work. In many ways, this step is essentially ongoing management; it stresses the importance of ensuring that the current goals are met, while evaluating what's out there to make things even better for you and the organization.

the role of tv news and a democratic republic

Am I starting to sound shrill about this whole TV thing? I don't know. All I know is news portrayed on television is a powerful force. Here's a recent op-ed from the Seattle Times that talks of this. Also, here's a link to a speech that Edward R. Murrow gave in the 1950s that seems just as relevant today. Ok, I'm done now. Back to your regularly scheduled weekend.

web != boogeyman

I don't typically read Time Magazine (in print) nowadays. So imagine my surprise when I read about a neighboring city to the North in an article on fluoride.

Why even mention that here? Well, I was taken aback by this statement, "All this makes for a potent mix, especially when filtered through the Internet, where health-safety concerns tend to get amplified." Uhm, where did that come from? Yes, the chaff from the wheat is difficult to sort out on the internet, but then again, I would argue it's also true for other forms of communication. As to health-safety concerns getting amplified, doesn't just about everything get amplified if you shine a bright light on it? Perhaps that has something to do with that whole repetition, repetition, repetition thing?

At the very least, the article marginally redeems itself by saying how effective the web can be in terms of motivating people. You'll get no argument there.

TV as a community building tool

It's rather telling that TV Guide advertises one of their site features as a means to "join the conversation" at the water cooler. To me, that's the power of television in a nutshell -- it helps people find a common frame of reference from which relationships can be formed, grow and all that good stuff we expect from communities. Television can be trivial as a passing conversation in the hall, or it could unify a nation, however briefly it may be.

Now, of course, the content on TV is fair game in my book. For example, do I really care what happens on the next episode of "Joey" when I didn't like Friends in the first place for it's dismal portrayal of a rather diverse city? Heck, no. And that's why I don't watch it. Decrying the entire television medium though, as the source of the decline of society or something like that is equivalent to saying the people who deliver mail should be fired because they delivered you junk mail.

Slight non-sequitor...all of this has me recalling all the talk of the fate of network news with Rather, Brokaw and Jennings gone from primetime. It was often cited (though I haven't found too many sources) about the population of those watching network news is much greater than those watching cable news. For those interested though, some info can be found at Journalism.org's State of The News Media report. In short, all the hype about the rise of cable news seems to be just that -- hype.

Another slight non-sewuitor -- if we are to "Get your news only through the radio and internet. (My personal choice is NPR.)" as suggested by Kathy Sierra, do we not run the risk of achieving the fictional future portrayed in epic2014? There's quite a lot of partisanship and talk of red and blue states (is that why we have purple mountain majesties"?). It's happening with our sources of information as well. Should this continue, what does that mean for this representative democracy of ours? Do we really live up to "E pluribus unum" or will we die like a chopped up snake?

Killing TV, Kills Common Experiences

Just finished reading Kill the television, keep the shows from creating passionate users, and I must say that I disagree.

The main thrust of the article is that watching TV mindlessly does a lot of bad things, but a TV can also foster good things like watching dvds, playing games, etc. I would argue that TV is much more than that. TV's, by virtue of the fact that they are one of the most basic plug and play devices out there, help to facilitate a common experience for an otherwise fractured and increasingly disconnected society.

Two cases in point. Katrina and 9/11.

Starting with the most recent, Katrina was a horrific event that put a spotlight on the the tragedies that happened following the devastating hurricanes. Not only that, but it shamed many in the nation to realize that poverty, lack of basic needs, class inequalities -- all exist in a society that was mesmerized by the round the clock coverage on TV. While radio and the web certainly played a large role in what happened post-Katrina, it was the presence of live images that grabbed the conscience of a nation, and briefly woke it up from a haze.

Likewise, following 9/11 this country was glued to the TV, as was the rest of the world. Personally I could not bear to watch much of the coverage, knowing those impacted, and having walked many of those streets day in and out years ago, but still, the images on TV humanized, personalized, and unified the experience who would not otherwise have known the full scope of the destruction. Print can sorta do that. Radio can also do that to some extent. The power of images, combined with voice, sound, and words though allows tv to trump other forms of media.

True, moments such as these (thankfully) do not happen often. When they do, however, TV is the messenger that unifies this country. This power of the news, when broadcast on a television is an incredibly powerful force and should not be underestimated, especially in times of crisis, tragedy, and the like.

One of the challenges to those of us interested in using technology to foster greater civic engagement -- ie, community action -- as I see it is how do you take the best of what broadcast journalism is without the worst of scenarios that lead themselves to great coverage?

Lee LeFever Interviews Steve August, KDA Research

This is interesting. Lee from commoncraft, used IM to interview Steve August, a research with KDA Research, who uses blogs to conduct research. Here's a little excerpt:

Lee: You mentioned how your new site would tell the KDA story better. What is the KDA story?
Steve: KDA Research focuses on helping companies understand their customers' world - meaning we focus on understanding how a particular product or service fits into the wider context of peoples' lives. We use a variety of research methods to do this, all based in a sociology/anthropology framework. So offline, we'll do ethnographies or on-site studies where we go out into the customer’s environment and observe people to discover opportunities for developing new products or improving current ones.
We've now started to take that ethnography framework and apply to research we conduct online.

Here's the rest of the interview on commoncraft.

Talk about using tech in different ways to further one's core mission!

Petitions online just the first step

Take-Two Interactive is underfire again for one of their games -- Bully. This time, there's even an online petition hosted at petitionline.

All of this got me wondering about the effectiveness of online petitions. On one hand, it's great in that it generates press like that Business Week article. On the other hand, at least for me, I have absolutely no investment with whatever the issue is after signing a petition. How exactly does that raise civic participation? How does that get people more invested in their communities?

Back to the bully petition for example. While I can see the intent, what is being done in that particular state with regards to bullying? Some states look at anti-bullying legislation. Even on the federal level, this comes up now and again. Couldn't resources be directed towards enacting these laws locally and nationwide? If that's too broad, what about something on the local school district level?

If you choose to use an online petition to raise visibility of a cause, that's great. But remember to build from that and give people the option to do something more tangible, local and realistic to their own experiences. Whether (in the case of bullying) it's attending a school board meeting to talk of bullying, or volunteering at your kids school, etc, there's a lot of ways in which you can build greater civic engagement in addition to signing an online petition.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Last night, we took a tour of the East Kong Yick (pronounced gung yick) building, the soon-to-be new home of the Wing Luke Asian Museum. The building is an old "mixed-use" space built in 1910 by the pooled resources of 170 Chinese pioneers. Over the years, it has housed migrant workers, served as a community center, in addition to providing retail space for the neighborhood.

This picture is one of the images I took last night. It's of a sink in one of the communal kitchens in the building.


While it doesn't even begin to capture the full spirit or history of the area, it helps me to convey my experiences to others about the history of the building beyond what these words here could ever do.

Granted my digital photography skills are lacking a bit, but it helps me share this quickly. If I had a camera phone, and a flickr acct tied to this blog, I could have uploaded it here a lot quicker. Tie in the blogging aspect in real time, and that's even better.

Had I all the tech, I would do that all the time. The notion of digital pics and sharing them in real time present really interesting opportunities for fostering greater civic engagement. I'm not the first to write on this I'm sure, and certainly I won't be the last. I just believe that if digital pictures are used effectively, they can help spread the mission of an organization or cause far faster and wider than what any of us could do ever before. Likewise, I think this same tool, if used well can then also inspire people to action, and help people document, record and share with a wider group than before...fostering greater momentum and the like. Tie in the notion of say GPS with an image...and then you can have an invite to a specific place with the context all provided in the image. Could you imagine what that means for protest or participation in public meetings, etc?

Sure we're not all bloggers or photojournalists...but if there's something to be said about getting better with practice, we all might be soon enough.

focusing on the endgame

friendster, myspace, facebook, spaces, blogger, typepad, etc. we have all these ways of interacting, communicating, and connecting online, but do we actually accomplish anything? There's a lot of talk about this stuff nowadays -- the latest story being Yahoo adding blogs to their news search..but so what?

I had a meeting last night to talk about the role of civic engagement, loosely tied to technology. It was interesting that the notion of face to face meetings came up and that those there seemed to value these encounters more. The thinking behind this was that they seem more scarce and out of the norm. In other words, the simplicity of connecting with people, online, through email, blogs etc makes the actual f2f gatherings *more* important because it's not as common, and in some ways, more difficult to control. Indeed, think about how many IM conversations a person can have at once, contrasted with the same number of f2f meetings at the same time. It doesn't really work so well.

Why is this relevant? I think in light of the shock (snicker) of some regarding teen use and technology, ypulse has it right. Tech is a tool. It's a means to an end, and not a means unto itself.

Tieing this all back to the whole notion of more choices of tools, what do we really want to accomplish with the tech? We can communicate to lots of people much easier than ever before, but if there is nothing to say, what's the point? Me, I want to get more people involved locally. If that means using a blog, myspace, dodgeball or whatever to get people more informed, motivated and active...all the better.

Oh, for a real life example of how to use "tech" for specific goals, check out this event by the Puget Sound Business Journal. Brilliant!

Myspace as a rallying point

There's been a story that's been making the rounds about a missing student. Typically, I don't pay too much attention to this stuff, especially given what seems to be a pretty clear bias. But it was more the role of myspace (and live journal) that caught my eye. Not only are the authorities reviewing comments left on the blog for clues, it has also turned into a sort of guestbook/memorial for Behl.

I couldn't help but think about another story that made headlines over the summer about the "deprogramming" summer camp. Not only was myspace a big part of that story, that too turned into a public space for people to comment, organize, and the like around a particular person or issue.

That myspace has been used in these instances as a rallying point of sorts, isn't really new. Tons of organizations have profiles on various social networking sites. What I wonder though, is how many are actually effective at reaching their base, fulfilling their mission, and the like? Is it too much to ask of organizations to actually do all of that with social networking sites? Could the fact that they are there on these sites be enough?

Games as social instruments

There's a really interesting (at least to me) article in Wired about latest venture from the creator of Pong. Even more interesting, this comes from the author of Urban Tribes (I'll explain more in a second).

To briefly summarize the article, basically there is a relatively new venture called uWink Media Bistros(.pdf). The whole concept behind this is to create a space where people can interact with one another around the concept of games. It's basically a restaurant that has games (the maker of Pong also owned Chucky Cheeses) and people can use the games as a means of interacting with others -- perhaps even leading to romantic relations.

Why is this good? Well, it helps to create a third space that becomes a hub of activity for people. It builds community, it builds relationships, strengthens ties, etc. You know, good stuff that people desire.

This ties in nicely with the fact that Ethan Watters wrote the article. Watters is also known for Urban Tribes -- a book that explores the notion of family, friendships, and ultimately community for those roughly 20 to 30ish. It's been awhile since I read it, but it was enjoyable. It was mostly a series of personal reflections and interviews with people trying to find their community. It's also a rebuttal to the outsider perspective that people in their 20s and 30s are basically a bunch of self-interested slackers with no ties or committments. Watters tends to argue that the doomsayer theories lamenting the decline of newer generations is wrong -- relationships, families, engagement just looks different in this day and age.

So what's the point of all of this? I think the concept of games and community is a case in point of Watters' argument, though it's not specifically generational. I know many folks, well into their 40s, 50s and beyond who find community through games, or otherwise non-traditional ways of looking at families and commitment.

Community is everywhere we look, sometimes in places we might not otherwise think, but it's there. People are connecting with one another each day -- through games, computers, blogs, or whatever. And sometimes, as in the case of "Ping", it doesn't even have to be very complex. Maybe we just need to remember that the tech isn't the be all and end all, but a means to something much greater than the sum of it's parts. There's something very powerful about that. There's something intrinsically human about that.

the wisdom of us

I wonder what the wisdom of this crowd is? Apparently the BBC had a fantasy world leader league and Nelson Mandela came out on top. Personally, I think that's great. Granted -- I don't know all that much about him, his politics, etc...but he did help end apartheid in South Africa and the whole reconciliation notion was brilliant so that's good in my book.

What was really striking to me though, was the number of business leaders (Gates, Jobs, Branson, Soros) on the list. I find this interesting, especially in light of the notion of trust (can you tell I'm on a big trust kick?)

What does it mean when people are more willing to trust business leaders than elected officials?

I think there's something inherently wrong with that. If people are more willing to trust business, is it any wonder why we have the seeming disengagement around policy and social issues? The work of elected officials seems to rank pretty low on the radar for most Americans, especially when you consider that there are tons of headlines about the latest with Jennifer Aniston, Britney or whoever.

Unfortunately, this lack of trust often seems to be well founded. Take a Bush's nepotism in appointing Michael Brown to direct FEMA, for example. Or a more local (Seattle) example, look at the amount of waste related to re-laying rails for transit. Is it any wonder why people are disillusioned with government officials?

I get the sense there's a strong lack of faith in elected officials (understandably, too) in posts like this. I say ok, you're disillusioned. Let's do something about it. It seems that with blogs, 43things, and countless of other tools (including offline, face to face meetings) we can really get something going here in terms of:

• motivating
• informing, educating, learning
• connecting
• inspiring
• acting
• acheiving

...something to change things we don't like. Again, I go back to that notion of showing up. If we don't show up, so to speak, those that do will call the shots. Us not showing up is in essence giving others free reign to make the decisions that impact us.

trust as a basic building block

I *finally* finished James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds. I say finally as I have a bad habit of starting multiple books at once and then it takes me that much longer to actually finish them. Anyway, I finished it, and it has me wanting more. Maybe it's the pop-science writing style, or maybe it's that I've read so much about it. I just didn't feel that any of the vignettes went into enough detail. I loved the section on democracy -- common good vs selfish-intent, but there wasn't enough red meat there for me. I thought that he would go towards explaining deliberative democracy in more detail, or highlighting AmericaSpeaks, but alas I was left wanting more. The author did detail alternative theories on democracy and crowd behavior, but still I wanted more.

I could go on, but this is not meant to be a book reviews. Rather, I'm struck by Surowiecki's thesis -- that groups, when individual members act independent of one another, are smarter as a whole than any one individual or a group acting with one mind. This sounds similar to the notion of Kathy Sierra's idea of keeping the sharp edges when working in groups -- that is, consensus isn't always good. I'm still struck by the anti-thetical nature of this. What happened to the notion of compromise and picking and choosing your battles? Aren't we supposed to try, for lack of a better phrase, "and all get along?" Maybe it's not so much on the notion of consensus vs independent actors, but in paraphrasing Surowiecki, "Democracy is does not showcase the wisdom of crowds. Instead, that things are done democratically, is the wisdom of crowds realized."

I wonder at what point people come to this realization? At what point do people realize that they made their case as best they could, they acted as an independent actor, and so did others, and only then, does the group decide something which essentially looks like consensus? I would think it's only after they begin to trust one another. Once people begin to trust that their individual fates are tied with that of the others at the table, only then does it seems that one can reconcile the notion of consensus with acting as an independent actor. In some ways this is like the that classic game theory where a person will reciprocate actions with the other player. If they trust that the other person will do the same, they'll act in kind. The second that a person acts in their own interest, the other player will reciprocate that self-interest/lack of trust.

So what does all of this have to do with tech, and the notion of civic engagement? To me the message is clear. Any use of tech to further civic or whatever means will need to take into account the notion of trust, and community. It doesn't need to create trust or community by itself, but it must either compliment or enhance it. Trust is one of those weird things that takes time to build. Communities also take time to build as well. Familiarity is part of it. Consistency also plays a role. One long-time community leader asserts that part of being invited to the table is just a matter of showing up and participating in the community. How else would they know to invite you to the table if they don't know that you're there and interested?