Designing for Civil Society

Ranting and reporting from WSIS

Andy Carvin, who heads up the Digital Divide Network, is currently making good use of personal media in reporting preparations for the next round of the World Summit on the Information Society. He writes "Just in case my blog entry didn't capture the chaos from earlier today, here are some videos of the civil society plenary in which Tunisian human rights activists fought with other Tunisian representatives over the human rights caucus document that was supposed to be delivered to the WSIS prepcom plenary." Fortunately later sessions were more orderly. The videos are avi format so look as if they are straight from a stills camera, showing you don't need to carry a lot of kit. Elsewhere on his blog Andy offers a clickable map of his travels, audio, and a feed from a Yahoo discussion group.
There's always plenty of rhetoric at these events about the personally empowering potential of technology, but fewer participants practising what they preach.
Earlier item on WSIS

PKM - or how do I get all this stuff organised

For those who want to move beyond filing emails more effectively there's a heavy-duty article on Knowledgeboard about Personal Knowledge Management by Silverio Petruzzellis and Fulvio Iavenaro.
They argue PKM goes well beyond management of information, and say "it is a framework designed by individuals for their own personal use. It involves skills that go beyond each individual’s technological competencies; it embraces personal habits and preferences more than any predefined and standardized activity aimed at organizing information; it goes towards social networking when thinking of the power of interactions as the main source to enrich our expertise and personal knowledge."
The authors offer a list of PKM tools ranging from search through email management, mind mapping and voice recognition to people and expert finding in social networks, and finish up with a list of other articles and sites.
Maybe it's just me, but I sense that "personal" is the new (or not so new) buzz... personal networks, personal media, and also personalisation of public services, where, as Charles Leadbeater advocates, users may be involved in the design and delivery of services. Using their personal media, perhaps.
More on this blog about knowledge sharing

Whitehall goes wiki

Think tank Demos notes what they believe is the first example of a UK government department or quango using a wiki for public consultation. The wiki (essentially a web site that can be edited and added-to by users) is run by the Sustainable Development Commission.
I wish Professor Tim Jackson, SDC Commissioner, every success in leading the debate and really hope it works. I did something a little less ambitious recently, when I used a wiki to develop a policy paper against a tight deadline with a group of professional planners. We got the job done, and it was a terrific way of showing anyone interested how development was going. What was more difficult was getting full use of the system. People would add some comments... or read the wiki and email me. But just as blogs offer a new experience to information consumers - see previous item - observing collaborative wiki writing may bring a new transparency to consultation when time is short and face-to-face difficult. Maybe there should be a "read this and agree" box to tick.
See also How e-consultation can become e-manipulation.

Technology treats - the new team builder

Jonathan Briggs returns to the question of how groups can effectively use blogs to take action - in this instance how they can be used by those on Common Purpose courses to take up community leadership challenges. His ideas lead me to think that rising to the technolology challenge could be a useful way for many groups to start working together effectively.
I reported earlier on a meeting we had with some of the Common Purpose team, and last week Jonathan and I met Oliver Mack again to follow through.

How e-consultation can become e-manipulation

Email, web forums, text messages, digital TV and so on are all empowering tools that can re-enliven democracy and help engage people in discussion about the future of their neighbourhoods and cities. Or they are elitist tools used mainly by the well-off and literate to get yet more advantage in consultation about the delivery of public services and facilities.
That's the usual polarisation between enthusiasts and sceptics....but at a round table today organised by E-consultancy we enjoyed a more enlightening discussion. However, it still left me with the feeling that many e-consultation processes - perhaps well meant - can easily become part of the growing body of pseudo-engagement processes. As my friend Drew Mackie has put it, we end up Dancing while standing still.
The discussion started with a focus on what e-tools could be used in consultation, drawing the response from several people that first you have to establish who you wish to engage, over what time, using a range of methods that meets people's preferences. You have to think about the whole system of interested stakeholders, and how much say they will get. Power-holders - whether government, agencies or developers - should be honest about how consultation results will be used.
"If you ask people whether they want a new road, tunnel, building, and they say no - do you stop or just change the colour" as one participant put it.
The same experienced community engagement practitioner made the point that all engagement process are particular to the people and circumstances.... so it is a mistake to take a cook-book approach and, he added, "we find that 95 per cent of people asking us to help plan engagement processes have left it too late". It takes time to plan, to communicate, to get feedback, and most important of all to build trust and relationships in which different parties understand each other's needs and preferences.
I explored some of these issues in a Guide to Effective Participation written in the pre-Net era, and one model that is still useful is the idea of the ladder of participation, originally formulated by Sherry Arnstein. At the top of her ladder is citizen control and delegated power, and at the bottom manipulation and therapy, where people think they are getting a say but find they are conned, stroked... and we would now say, spun.
One danger with e-tools is that bodies who have to fulfill the increasingly tough requirements for consultation or more substantial participation, but leave it too late, may think that putting up a web site and blitzing people with emails and text messages will help them cut corners. It may look pretty fancy, but it is potentially highly manipulative for several reasons. It only works well with those who have access, confidence, literacy. It doesn't enable people to see and hear the proponents and judge their honesty. It only allows conversations among those who use the technology... unlike a well-run event where everyone can join in if the facilitation is appropriate.
E-tools and processes can, of course, enliven politics and participation, and e-democracy evangelist Steven Clift has a great collection of resources documenting how. Better still, catch Steven when he is in town.... even e-gurus are better face to face.
I think that by the end of the two-hour session there was general agreement that e-tools are an increasingly important part of the engagement mix, but unlikely to work on their own. I think they have at least two important catalytic and empowering roles beyond that.
The first is that committing to put all significant content and comment online has a cascade effect on other media and meetings. It opens things up. It doesn't matter if not everyone has access - providing those that do use it to spread the word to others, and use open access to challenge the controllers.
The second is that activists are becoming increasingly capable online. Power-holders that try and stage inadequate processes that are too short, or pretend to offer full engagement but only provide for 'tick the box', will increasingly find citizens using e-tools to organise and challenge them.
As Jello Biafra put it: Don't hate the media, become the media.
More here on engagement

Email feedback proves a mixed blessing for journalists

In today's Guardian "The Readers' editor' Ian Mayes reports on Email anxiety that is afflicting journalists who put their email address at the end of their pieces. While most journalists he spoke to welcome the direct contact this offered with readers, quite a few were anxious that they were overwhelmed and couldn't respond. One said: "Worst of all worlds is printing an address, suggesting the possibility of an exchange, then ignoring the mail."
However, the advantage, noted by many, "was the flow of information, ideas and contacts they gained from their "real" correspondence, as opposed to the lobbies, the abuse and the spam.
"A freelance journalist who wrote recently on the comment pages emailed the commissioning editor to say she had been delighted with the feedback - about 25 emails, bringing more information, some new contacts, three offers to write for other newspapers, and a note from an old schoolfriend with whom she had long lost touch."
It seems to me that direct reader feedback is one challenge to the temptation for journalists to write for other journalists, and take their reward from the extent others follow their story - rather than the response of readers they (should) aim to serve. It could also provide them with something to take to editors to show what interests people.... well, those that are avid emailers anyway.
On a positive note, I did once email the BBC's political editor Andrew Marr about a piece he did interviewing himself that didn't - I felt - come off well. He came back immediately with a charming and self-depracatory response, which convinced me he was in fact as honest as he (usually) looked on screen.
Perhaps we'll see journalists - or their papers - setting up blogs or wikis with collections of articles and and comment facilities, thereby reducing the email load. Of course, that would provide readers with an open and more interactive forum than the traditional letters page, and great scope for blogging readers to set up links and extend the discourse. Where would it end? I can see why some journalists might be anxious about that. Definitely a challenge to the elite.
More here on What is participatory journalism? in the Online Journalism Review.

Working group started on connecting blogs and forums

Martin Röll has now reported on Knowledgeboard a meeting which discussed how to join up blogs, forums and other online places. In doing that he explores why people blog - personal journalling, collections, publishing, conversations - with accompanying mindmap. There are some technical suggestions on better connections for forums and blogs, and the promise of a working group.

New book on technology in civil society (or vice versa)

Howard Rheingold - who wrote a chapter - notes publication by MIT Press of Shaping the Network Society: The New Role of Civil Society in Cyberspace, Edited by Douglas Schuler and Peter Day
Howard writes: "Information and computer technologies are used every day by real people with real needs. The authors contributing to Shaping the Network Society describe how technology can be used effectively by communities, activists, and citizens to meet society's challenges. In their vision, computer professionals are concerned less with bits, bytes, and algorithms and more with productive partnerships that engage both researchers and community activists. These collaborations are producing important sociotechnical work that will affect the future of the network society."
Many of those - like Doug and Peter - are involved day-to-day in community technology projects, so it looks promising. My question - as usual - is how far it makes sense to study technology-based social and community networking without regard to the wider range of ways people communicate and develop relationships. I guess I'll need to get the book, since there are suggestions in the chapter headings that this is covered. Howard writes on "What Do We Need to Know about the Future We're Creating? Technobiographical Reflections", and Peter and Doug conclude with a piece on "Prospects for a New Public Sphere."
Prerviously: Just how relevant is the Net locally - as a model and a tool?

Sometimes the best concerts are free

Spitalfields is the London neighbourhood where rich City meets meets poor Hackney and Tower Hamlets, and its annual festival reflects that mix and the histories of Jewish, Bangladeshi and Cockney communities that have lived there.
Over the next couple of weeks there's a terrific programme of concerts and other events, studded with some top names. But often it is the more modest event that makes the greatest impression.
Last night I went to a magical, free, concert given by children from local schools, at Shoreditch Church. The church, build in 1740, while still used for worship, is showing a little wear and tear. That didn't matter. The young performers were terrific, running through more than a dozen pieces for massed stings, choir and soloists in an hour under director Simon Foxley. They ranged through Bach and Purcell to Gershwin and Cowan (Waltzing Matilda).
The organisation was excellent, with music projected on screen to avoid much shuffling of stands, and different groups nipping on and off stage with precision that would shame many professional groups.
The mix of those performing reflected that of the many different cultures in the area. As my wife Ann reflected as we left (gladly dropping some coins into the collection bucket), preparation and performance at events like that probably do more for community cohesion than many officially-supported projects.
Tomorrow's free show - Broadway Dames in the garden of the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel.
Previously: The seriously useful side of fetes and festivals

Brits keep it clean on webcam (they say)

Telewest Broadband have released research which shows - they maintain - that the 1.5 million people in the UK using webcams are generally modest, polite, and mainly chatting to friends and family..... in contrast to the Eastenders soap star alleged to have engaged in unseemly displays and abuse of his co-stars online.
One in five Brit males claims to favour an online chat with the Queen, and "one in five women would rather have a webcam chat with Tony Blair rather than film hunk Orlando Bloom (13%)." Well, I suppose they would say that wouldn't they. Is it a wind-up? The report from Telewest continues:
To help consumers through the online minefield of webcam etiquette, experts from LIVINGtv’s hit show ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy UK’ are on hand to help. The Fab Five have given their top tips to ensure disaster-free webcam usage:
1. Never, ever eat or lick your fingers while webcamming – when talking to a stranger this could be easily misunderstood
2. Keep the lighting soft, desk clutter free and turn the music down to keep the focus on you
3. Sit still and don't start moving around or fiddling with your clothes - viewers will wonder what you're doing
4. Make sure you look clean and tidy and don't wear glasses if you can help it, the reflection on the lenses is not flattering
5. Wear something with a reasonably high neck so that you don't look as if you are naked
Chad Raube, director of internet services at Telewest Broadband, added: “As more people are getting hooked up to broadband internet, it’s no wonder that as a nation we’re becoming obsessed with ‘webiquette’.”
All good clean marketing fun.
Thanks to Networks Online xPRESS service for the link.