Impressions from Re-publica and Social Innovation Camp

April 14, 2008

The German vs. the British websphere

Well, a week after attending both, the Social Innovation Camp (sicamp08) and re-publica, I finally post my reflections on these events. It was great to visit these two events, listen to numerous interesting presentations at re-publica, and grasp the contagious spirit of social innovation in London. There were interesting differences and similarities on discussions in these two events, but I will just extend on some thoughts I had:

  • There are great projects regarding Edemocracy in both countries, which allow citizens to participate or influence politics and to give more transparency. There is even a German-British cooperation called e-participation.net. On a workshop, full of interesting presentations about this topic, Christoph Dowe said that it is still not easy to get citizens to engage on those platforms. Some websites do not get any attention and others, such as ich-gehe-nicht-hin.de ( “I do not go there”) for nonvoters or abgeordnetenwatch.de (ask the member of Parliament), are successful. Mysociety.org has great projects in this regards, based in the U.K. For example, Fix my Street.
  • On both events free and open source software (FOSS) played an important role. It is clear that FOSS invites for collaboration and allows to build platforms for social innovation, which proprietary software cannot do because it is for commercial purposes. Regarding knowledge sharing, I really like the presentation of deepmehta software, in which knowledge is represented in a semantic network and is handled collaboratively.
  • The whole topic around social change, innovation or entrepreneurs plays are far more a significant role in the U.K. Whereas on the re-publica, social entrepreneurs, e.g. startups for social change, played no role although there were promising projects such as betterplace.org and helpedia.org (will blog soon about them). The social innovation camp was fully devoted to this topic.
  • Whereas at re-publica privacy laws and data protection were high on the agenda, on the social innovation camp they were of no importance. In contrary, I was surprised how openly people took user generated content for granted. The all over camera surveillance (CCT) in London is rather not amusing.

Local vs. global news

republica.jpgAnother interesting development, is the emphasis on the local, as a sicamp08-fellow pointed it out to me during the first evening. The internet is truly global and it is great to connect with people worldwide, but there is this paradox that in the UK or in Germany one often does not even know its home-neighbours. So, there are projects coming up to have social network applications, so that people from an area can find similar interests and engage in community development.

At the re-publica.de, I listened to a presentation by Sean Bonner about “Blogging about local issues, on a global scale.” It dealt with the high relevance of local news in the global web and how metblogs.com tries to cover that. Sean Bonner said:

Before the web local issues did not get as much attention - national and international stuff was more important. Money was made through those kind of news. The Internet changed the distributing and exchange of news specifically on the local level. Blogs play a decisive role. Blog networks are key in local news exchanging.

Back in 2003, Sean Bonner and friends found that there was a lack of local information. Opinions, thoughts and recommendations about local issues. They started working on a local blogging network in L.A, and then opened up a platform called metblogs.com for a overarching network of local bloggers. Nowadays, over 50 cities are participating.

One interesting example is the coup back in 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand. First news appeared 6 hours before CNN on metblogs.com by people equipped with mobile phones. Similarly happened in Pakistan during the web blackout last year. There was also an interesting attempt by AOL to copy their concept, but it did not work out without a community. Sean Bonner said the newspapers rather copy the tools, but forget about the social dimension behind local community blogging.

I did not know about this network before, but it looks interesting. However, it seems often quite individualistic and with random topics. Global Voices Online follows closer developments in countries and translates them in other languages.

An in depth Social Innovation Camp blog post is in process. :-)

Spoil the user? Why are not always the WYSIWYG Editors the right way?

April 11, 2008

Last week, I was at the re-publica.de conference. Often, the most interesting aspect of conferences are the side talks with other visitors. And this one was not the exception. I had a great chat with Martin Koser, an enterprise2.0 expert (with excellent bookmarks) and Andreas Gohr, the head developer of the interesting DokuWiki. We discussed in length the barriers and potentials to start implementing social software in organizations and once again agreed on the importance of the organizational culture. But the technical side is also quite complex and, for example, wikis can be implemented in various ways.

So far, I am amazed about the collaboration potential of wikis, but also disappointed about their usability. Until this discussion, I was kind of convinced that the user shall be in the focus. Participation should be as easy as possible, so no technical barrier hinders users to add or edit content. But Martin and Andreas surprised me at one point by saying that WYSIWYG are not necessarily an advantage. I shared my surprise on twitter, which brought up these reactions, and hence, I decided to write a blog post about it:

wisyis.png

So far, I argued for WYSIWYG editors for these reasons:

  • There are different little barriers one has to bear before one can start editing a wiki page. Most people are used to Word, and WYSIWYG editors are familiar in this regard. Cryptic code might be confusing and needs some experience.
  • WYSIWYG give guidance and integrate nicely other media such as images or table.
  • A wiki is not seldom confusing because of its missing hierarchy. WYSIWYG editors ease to set up new pages or link to existing ones.
  • Many wikis still lack user orientation and are rather confusing (e.g. no hierarchical menu or insufficient linking). The less a user has to think or adapt, the better. Content should matter.

So here it is a list of arguments against WYSIWYG editors. Martin Koser also wrote another excellent post about it.

  • Too much function distracts from content. It is the same problem with Word. Hours spent on elaborating sophisticated tables instead on concentrating on the content.
  • Code editors limit users and let them focus on structured content — what is useful and which structure (e.g. header and bullet point lists) is best for the reader? If used properly, those texts have more clarity.
  • WYSIWYG invite to paste all content completely from word, which is not necessarily conducive for collaboration.
  • Basically, it is a short code list to learn, and then you can write faster and it is more simply to edit codes.
  • No doubt the code created by WYSIWYG is often a mess and does not separate content and formatting.

Does that convince you?
The discussion, once again, showed me how complex the implementation of social software can be, or how easy if you just let the people use it. The question of WYSIWYG editor might be trivial, but in contrary, the lack of those editors are a key argument to decline social software, as Martin pointed out.

NGO2.0 — the end of the organization? (1)

March 19, 2008

Michael Gilbert wrote an article called “The End of the Organization?” in which he wonders how civil society organizations, such as NGOs, can continue working the way they do?

Whether the organization as we know it survives or not, it is by studying the changing patterns of communication that we will discover the new shape of civil society. Our methods of analysis - and possibly our methods of regulation, funding, and participation - will shift from those that reflect managerial thinking to those that reflect ecosystem thinking.

Here are five important innovations that we need to make this transition successfully: (1) We need ways of making network structures tangible to those who want to support civil society. (2) We need to develop and propagate the language of networks, with adjustments suitable to our many communities of practice. (3) We need models of collaboration and communication that help organizations make the most out of their new permeability. (4) We need financial structures that facilitate network centric funding and (5) legal structures that facilitate network centric employment.

This kicked off a debate among these bloggers: Joitske Hulsebosch, Andy Roberts, David Wilcox and Josien Kapma. Their interesting posts discuss whether the statement is valid and emphasize the role that communication plays within it, and to which extend a transformation of civil society and its organizations has already happened.

I think that organizations eventually have to change because of: (a) complexity, which can only be managed in open networks; and (b) pressure from members, stakeholders or competitors, who move on to other organizations, coalitions or simply form there own campaign. But, in my opinion, the organization will change slowly. Still, NGOs have been participating in networks or coalitions for decades although there internal structure has been often preserved conventional. Here lies the dilemma that most organizations are still pretty much self-contained and naturally driven by self-interest for funding, reputation, etc. — and this is a key obstacle for cooperation. However, civil society was one of the first ones to start working on the potential of the web and in networks if you look at campaigns against the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) or the Zapatistas in Mexico in the Nineties. A key challenge, for traditional NGOs in the next years, will be to compete with extra organizational activism or open networks for social change.

Allison Fine coined the phrase extra organizational activism in her book “Momentum igniting social change in the Connected Age.” She argues about how we should reconsider cooperation and external communication in an organizational context. I wrote about her book in this blog post: open source approach for organizations. One step in the same direction is The Membership project, where David Wilcox is also part of and which “explores changes that the social web and other factors may bring to groups and organisations … and to our ideas of belonging in an increasingly networked society.”

Replying to Michael Gilbert’s five value points, I think they tend to be very formalistic and I can see the web is changing faster and forming more loose networks with their own rules. So the question is whether traditional NGOs can match these loose and open networks with their sometimes quite conventional organization. And I wonder whether it is possible and even conducive to search and create”models of collaboration” or “legal structures” to harness the potential of these new networks.

7 concerns about the web in 2008

January 21, 2008

Frequent readers know I am quite enthusiastic about the social web, its potentials and cultural impact. Especially when it comes to knowledge sharing and information and communication technologies for development. However, I also have concerns and see obstacles about the participative web — its development and its divide. So as a start of 2008, I will try not to add predictions, instead some challenges.

1. Exclusion
Connectivity is not only about access but also being able to use the web with all its potentials. To express oneself with social media and to engage in social networks. The social web has a philosophy of openness and sharing, but social networks often have typical exclusive patterns. Getting the right information through feeds does not make you more inclusive. The nowadays web is more participative than ever before, but still strives along lines of exclusion. Exclusion is around having instant access, and being from the western hemisphere, having a better education and getting more attention. The front-runners are far ahead of normal internet users. My concern is that “those already rich in knowledge, information and connections may just get richer” (Charles Leadbeater).

2. Complexity
The social web opens the door for participation, but simultaneously it widens the gap between insiders and outsiders. Although the web is getting easier — just 3 clicks to a blog — the barrier for entry is still high. Not everybody is as well connected, experienced and qualified to deal with all these tools and opportunities. To understand blogs, wikis, feeds and social bookmarking takes time. I taught a relative of mine the other day the first steps on how to use the Internet and realized once again how complex the web has got. There are so many tools but so little explanation. The plain in English videos are a rarity.

3. Orientation
As great as folksonomies are and as smart as the wisdom of crowd is, it still does not give us sufficient orientation in the world wide web. The delicious startpage will make you think the web is about programmers, but what does it tell an internet newbie? To find relevant information can still be a difficult task or even within the social web takes time and resources. Social bookmarking and blogs are amazing sources of information, however, you have to find them or have the know-how to grasp their potential. Web2.0 got much more user-friendly, but a lot more has to be done to explain the opportunity for everybody. For some people, web2.0 made the web even more complex because the voices of many do not necessarily give orientation.

4. Many voices
The number of blogs is growing every day and social networks attract many new members, but there is hardly any two-way-conversation on most blogs. Millions of blogs do not have comments, thousands of facebook groups have soon after they started lost their life. The many voices often do not get as many responses. Especially when the web is used to promote social change, it is questionable to which extent this can be done over the web. Often, great stories in blogs are not read because nobody links to them. The social web has its own competition over attention and this easily will forget Kenya, Let’s Talk Scoble-gate!

5. Speed
The speed of development is breathtaking and hardly to follow. Only a minority keep up the pace. A bit more than ten years ago the only digital presence I had was on an answering machine. Nowadays new gadgets, tools and opportunities fly up daily and there is hardly any time to try the older ones, because they are bypassed by “better” solutions. That is the case of most blog posts which receive no attention after a few days. It is hardly possible to follow the speed of innovation and question whether this is necessary. Alone wikis and blogs bear a great potential and have started to be used in different contexts.

6. Information overload
From my work, I look on web2.0 from a knowledge management perspective. Blogs and wikis are surely no miracle because they simply cannot supply a real good face to face meeting and a creative brainstorming in a group. As a recent study tells that 2008 is the year of the information overload. Emails are seen as a key obstacle, but implementing blogs and wikis can also lead to the similar result. First comes the need and then maybe a web solution, but only one really fits best what is already there. Web2.0 tools can become a time waster and too little is asked about the benefit of them. Or as Bev Trayner wrote in her post, maybe less is better when it comes to online tools.

7. Filter
I am amazed about the information power gain through feeds and getting more and more decent quality information out of the web. But it is still not easy to filter, or it takes a lot of time to get qualitative information. It is still difficult to find relevance in the social web, so I can click through a world of wisdom. Language is a key challenge and also the dominance of the masses like in the old media.

Social software for social change

December 24, 2007

Charles Leadbeater, well known for his book We Think, has released an interesting paper called “Social Software for Social Change.” The paper presents rich examples about civic action through the web and its impact on democracy. With the advice from Dan Mcquillan, Leadbeater greatly links different forms of activism and engagement; as well as elaborating how these new forms of engagements can promote social change, interact with the state and shape politics. Because it is one of the best peaces I have read for a while, I summarize it in this blog post.

This is the content of the paper:

  1. The social web’s democratic potential
  2. New media, new democracy?
  3. The social web in practice
  4. Conclusions

The social web’s democratic potential
Leadbeaters argues that the architecture of participation of web2.0 allows new forms of social activism. One outcome is the focus on causes and not as much on organizations that represent them. It can be called extra-organizational activism, as Allison Fine framed it, or simply ‘do it yourself activism.’ Users can individually start campaigns. The long tail theory can be also translated in unlimited ways for social change; one example is change.org. Leadbeaters also wonders whether civic organizations will be ready to exploit the potentials.

New media, new democracy?
The second chapter deals about potentials for democracy. Leadbeaters identifies three main respects:

  1. Accountability: Citizens have new means to held politicians to account. Mzalendo.com in Kenya is such an example.
  2. Debate: The social web allows for more people to have a voice and promotes collective problem solving.
  3. Campaigning: The web dramatically cutting costs of mobilising people in campaigns.

So, is this really a push forward for e-democracy? For Leadbeater deliberation is a major aspect and mobilization another. The social web offers new venues for engagement and conversations about social change. It is not about technology or just signing a petition, but rather a continuous dialogue about public issues. Leadbeaters sees promising examples such as Wikipedia for an ethic of responsible self-governance and open debate. The challenge is about who will be hosting these deliberative conversations: The state, the media or civil society?

Very interesting are also the downsides Leadbeaters identifies:

  • Cacophony of too many voices and few responses.
  • Echo chamber: In a niche one hears from others a confirmation of what they already think.
  • Quality: How can a certain degree of quality be obtained when the classical gatekeepers such as the media are lost.
  • Equality: Those already rich in knowledge, information and connections may just get richer.

The social web in practice
This chapter analyses new web based actors or “quasi-political parties” such as moveon.org and identifies three forms civil society use the web:

  1. Sustaining innovations in which the third sector uses the social web to do traditional tasks more efficiently
  2. Disruptive innovations which create models for the third sector so it can organize itself
  3. Hybrids in which organisations create a mix of traditional and new ways of working.

Example for the first point are online petitions or fund raising. NGOs are pioneers in widening own constituencies over the web. But another great potential lies in disruptive innovations. This can be for collective problem, e.g. I love Bees, as Leadbeater describes in his book “We Think” or for direct action. The mobile phone is a key for citizen engagement as examples from all over the world show. “A technology that can mobilise friendship networks for political ends thus is potentially very powerful.”

This is only a small summary as the paper goes in much detail and brings together a wide range of thoughts from scholars about this theme. I think it is a great way to learn about the young history for online civic action. Exciting times are ahead for how these new forms will emerge. But one point is the same obstacle online and offline, the citizen have to have an interest to engage and whether the web will open new ways to engage.

I also wonder whether it can and should work as Leadbeaters argues, that the third sector — mainly civil society — takes over to act as independent, trusted guides and moderators for debate, and whether this is necessary? Do you agree with the concerns or downsides? Do you share the potentials for deliberation and mobilization?

Open Source Life?

November 12, 2007

As Japan is losing interest in the personal computer, Google announces recently the Android alliance to bring free and open source software to mobile phones. The revolutionary part of this is that proprietary software might be mostly for the personal computer; it will not longer be anymore for the mobile. lego.jpgThis opens complete different opportunities because free and open source software unleash creativity and the mobile phone is in many countries the number one tool. One of the main communication devices is now open to all kinds of ideas.
But open source is not only about software. It is a movement or philosophy where the software is just one part of it. Approaches such as Creative Commons propagate the use for open license of texts, music, films and many other things. All that shows a shift in thinking of copyright. However, it can also significantly change our work and life.

One approach is to facilitate international development through free and open source. Vinay Gupta argues for open source in technologies such as those for the household.

An open library of designs for refrigerators, lighting, heating, cooling, motors, and other systems will encourage manufacturers, particularly in the developing world, to leapfrog directly to the most sustainable technologies, which are much cheaper in the long run. Manufacturers will be encouraged to use the efficient designs because they are free, while inefficient designs still have to be paid for. This library should be free of all intellectual property restrictions and open for use by any manufacturer, in any nation, without charge.

It basically means that people can jointly create tools or machines and develop them collaboratively further on a peer-to-peer base. That leads to projects such as an open source car or an open source machine. Web2.0 with its many new opportunities for participation, can bring the open source approach to another level. Nowadays, it is social media, but hopefully soon it will be collaboration on a massive scale to find pragmatic low cost solutions for communities. That could happen by conceptualizing with a network of expertise from different actors, by exchanging experiences learning from each other worldwide. Check out the blog from the peer2peer foundation for more insights. The blogger Michel Bauwens collects also excellent links in delicious.

Frithjof Bergmann, (German Blog) a German philosopher, goes in his theory of New Work–New Culture in a similar direction. He propagates that open exchange should become part of our lives. His theory is provocative and has some open source elements in it. Broadly said, he argues that nowadays economy cannot offer enough work for everybody. Secondly, he argues that people often do not work what they really really want to do and questions where does their talent lies. His solution is that people shall divide their work in three thirds. One third to work to have an income, another third to do what they are good at where they can unleash their creativity, and lastly, one third to build and construct all the things and services one cannot earn with the less income. Whether it is realistic or not is another question, even though he has proved around the world in different places such as prisons or Flint in the USA. Here is a paper from Frithjof Bergmann. Here is also a blog post describing Bergmann’s approach in Africa.

What I find interesting about these arguments and developments is that it is possible to have a paradigm shift in the future. It is not only companies and organizations, how the Wikinomics authors argue in their book. It is a culture shift through a new dimension of communication and collaboration. Open source is the fuel for this movement. A peer-to-peer decentralized network to find solutions for everyday problems, develop new forms of low-tech production and own distribution channels by working together in networks in an open source spirit.

Development aid 2.0

October 2, 2007

I was interviewed by the Deutsche Welle (German version) last week during the web2fordev conference. As a result from the interview, an interesting article was deutsche-welle.pngpublished (Entwicklungshilfe 2.0) in which not only the potential of web2.o in the context of development is discussed, but it is also questioned whether web2.o will do a shift to development aid in general. Interesting point I thought, and a bit visionary. “With the access to information,” the author writes, “development aid can come closer to its goal to help for self help.”

The articles also describes a bit the work of Kabissa in Africa, and emphasizes the potentials for organisations to network more effectively and share knowledge. I know, from my working experience with civil society in Egypt, that cooperation between civil society is a key factor, therefore I am very curious to see how this will develop within the next years. Right now it seems to me that it is often driven by the diaspora or development agencies although there are many great grassroot initiatives.

The article in general does not grasp exactly the implications of we2.0 for development aid. It mixes up different notions of development. But, on the other hand, it highlights the two way conversation for development and what it could mean for development organizations to be much better connected with beneficiaries and obtain direct feedback. But as I questioned before on a panel of the web2fordev conference, “Web2.0 offers and relies on open communication and knowledge sharing. Therefore it has great potential for participation and innovation. But are development organizations ready for this kind of openness?”

Full article translated by google

E-democracy: participation next? (2) Germany

August 13, 2007

Overview
First of all, I would like to thank Jan Amos and and Rolf Lührs for their comments. Yes, I agree that in Germany some initiatives around e-democracy have been taken (e.g. e-petition in the German parliament), however, in comparison to German’s vibrant political life, its web is politically inactive. In that regard, politik-digital.de is a lighthouse for many years and a think tank that discusses and analyzes politics and the net. The European counterpart, Europa-digital.de, has done a lot for independent coverage. Their latest initiative, e-participation.net, is great but it also shows how only so little has arisen. Another website is abgeordnetenwatch.de, where citizens can address politicians directly, leading to direct pressure, as Jan nicely pointed out. It is this kind of approach which opens a two-way-conversation.

Politik2.0 and campaigns
However, taking a look at the German political activism in the web or initiatives for e-democracy you get the impression that web2.0 has not arrived in Germany. For example, if you look at the blogosphere, you will hardly see any political blog and rarely grassroot activism. This was also regretted on a discussion called “Politik2.0” last Spring on the ‘Re-Publica‘ conference. Only few blogs are different, such is the case of netzpolitik.org, which works as a watchdog dealing with all sorts of topics around the Internet and liberty rights. Right now they are part of a campaign against the Minister of Interior’s latest idea of Stoppt die Vorratsdatenspeicherung“Vorratsdatenspeicherung“. The current government initiated a law that will allow the saving of all personal web traffic including email, etc. for half a year. The minister of interior also elaborates the wrong idea to allow private investigation through hacking software. Another interesting recent campaign was the one of flickr and censorship in Germany.

Some challenges
The challenges that keep e-democracy from moving much further in Germany are multifold. Markus Beckedahl said on the Politik2.0 discussion, that the political arena has still not yet embraced or even understood the web. Best prove is a an interview on German television given by kids, who asked Germans such as the Minister of Justice about different browsers. She replied: “Browsers? What are browsers again?” Another problem is surely the missing transparency of the German political system in some regards. For example, information about politician salaries have been made public just recently. But shouldn’t that missing transparency make the web more political?
Most surprising is the fact that civil society has not embraced the recent web developments and has not even started to use web2.0 potential.

Web2.0 and politics
But what strikes me the most is that web2.0 is purely seen as a business topic. It surely is a buzz word, but it does offer a new form of participation. For example, on bar camps blogger, politics and activism play no role. In the realm of web2.0, German blogger focus mainly on start-ups. The great potential for participation, being it political or for knowledge sharing and social change, is not been seen here in Germany in the wide blogosphere. The best example of this development is trupoli.com, a new political web2.0 platform which offers “true politics” that can be experienced free from media show. What really occurs to me is that trupoli.de is a corporation! Will participation and political discourse be now a part of demand and supply? I am looking forward to see a maplight.org application analyzing trupoli in the future.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic, especially right now, that an unconference about e-democracy takes place in Berlin. I am eager to hear about the outcome.

E-democracy: participation next? (1)

July 30, 2007

ParticipationThe concept of e-democracy dates from the early days of Internet. To my understanding, it embraces everything that connects political processes and the web. Back in the 90s high promises were linked to the web and its implications for democracy and participation. One early example is the Electronic Town Hall, but nowadays e-democracy stands for many approaches such as e-activism, e-politics, e-participation or latest government2.0.

While the early beginnings were optimistic, they had often not fulfilled promises. Such is the example of new venues to engage digital citizens to participate directly through e-voting. Another example was e-government, which encompasses different layers such as networking government institutions, and makes or offers more direct services to citizens. On the contrary, civil society such as NGOs or social movements embrace the potential of web for their activism earlier, quicker and deeper. Already back in 1999, the Seattle protests were effectively organized over the web.

There are many reasons why especially governments respond slowly to the potentials of the web, and why civil society uses the web strategically. But both sides have not really used the potential of the web to enhance participation. From my point of view two difficulties arise: (1) Government institutions and most NGOs are not yet willing to open themselves for an authentic two-way conversation. (2) Information is still in many cases not transparent and citizens are not being offered to participate.

Developments during the last year show some interesting new approaches to enhance participation. Tara Hunt calls it feedback2.0 (listen and learn) in her interesting government2.0 presentation. She says in her presentation:

“We need to change the way we approach service, viewing the public not as a recipient, but as more of a partner.”

One great example of enhancing more participation in political processes has been realized in Kenya. Mzalendo is a website, ” which is a volunteer run project whose mission is to keep an eye on the Kenyan Parliament.” One of the initiator is Ory Okolloh, who has been interviewed by BBC. The website offers valuable information on decision making processes in the Kenyan parliament and opens new ways of participation for active citizens. I have not yet discovered such a promising “watchdog” website in Europe, meaning how Germany lags behind.


Possibly related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , | Print this post | RSS Subscribe to my blog

Comments

Rounded corner top left
Rounded corner bottom left