Workaday World XXII
Lately, I've become fast friends with Chuck, the current security guard for the Scotch & Sirloin building. Since we learned each others' names, he's greeted me by name every single time he's seen me. Having worked in the security and building management industry for 14 years, Chuck's working here to get out of the house -- and "away from my wife during the day." He's retired military, and he's organized his work load so he's busy for six of the eight hours on the job. Most of the time, security work might be four hours of work during an eight-hour day. He reads when he has free time, and if his wife weren't out of work, he'd go back to school in political science and history. He's only got 18 credits left, he says.
But the excitement today is that they're fixing the windows in the Scotch & Sirloin building. The building management company spent the last five months securing a contractor for the project, and it looks like it's about to start. In the building, there are two kinds of windows. An older, single-pane style, and a newer, double-pane style. They're going to replace all of the single-pane windows and make sure that the new windows are up to snuff. Of the 380-odd windows in the building, about 160-plus are old. On our floor, there are about 45 old windows. I just checked my window now, and it's a new window, double paned with a 3/4-inch silver strip in between the panes. So they won't be climbing all over my desk.
How many windows per floor? I'm glad you asked because I wanted to do the math. If there are 380 windows in the building, with nine floors, that's about 92 windows per floor. If 45 windows in our office are old, that means that they'll replacing about half of them. That's quite an undertaking.
And I wouldn't have known about it were it not for my new friend Chuck.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
The Free-Range Comic Book Project
This is the first installment of Media Diet's Free-Range Comic Book Project.
For more information on this project, please refer to this Media Diet entry.
This is the first installment of Media Diet's Free-Range Comic Book Project.
100 Bullets #13 (DC/Vertigo, August 2000). Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Eduardo Risso. Location: A park bench in the North End.
For more information on this project, please refer to this Media Diet entry.
Monday, March 17, 2003
March Is the Month of the Prominent Crotch
You might already know that March is Women's History Month. And if you read advertising circulars in the Sunday newspaper, you might also know that March is Frozen Food Month. But if you take some time to flip through the March 2003 issue of Interview magazine, it quickly becomes clear that March is also the Month of the Prominent Crotch. Let's spread ourselves out and take a look, shall we?
Not too far into the book, we come across a two-page Prada spread. Here, a male model wearing an awkward knit sweater, lei, and almost-tartan skirt ensemble raises his left knee to the sky and bunches his eyebrows forward in a glower as if to say, "Look at me! You lookin' at me?" A mere eight pages later, we have a two-page Donna Karan spread in which a well-dressed and high-heeled model with no undershirt demurely knocks her knees while she reads what appears to be an academic journal or book of scientific abstracts. This is perhaps the most tasteful and teasing shot of the crotch in this issue, softcore for randy R&D kids.
On the following page, an oiled-up Dior model flashes the swell of her breast while swooning against a blood-red rubber wall, clutching at her pelvic region with the hand not holding her steady. Eyes closed and lips parted, the model seems to be losing consciousness: "I should eat," she thinks. Six more pages in, Dolce & Gabbana goes ga-ga glancing at a full-frontal crotch shot of a woman spreading her legs for a handheld video camera. Surrounded by no fewer than 10 monitors and two cameras, this is self-mediated crotch prominence at its best. Another showing swell of breast hints that this model is much more than just a crotch. Let's not pigeonhole these people, please.
On p. 70, a 1990 Herb Ritts photograph shows Madonna clutching at her crotch, indicating that the crotch knows no class boundaries. Everyone's got a crotch. P. 77 sports a Matthew Barney advertisement in which a pale-skinned, bee-hived model spreads her legs for the camera's eye too, demurely and delicately crossing her unringed and uncalloused hands in front of her bared crotch. "Don't go there! Oh, whatever, come on," her eyes seem to beckon tiredly. On p. 94, a slightly out-of-focus tennis ball hovers in front of -- and partially obscuring -- Buddhist athlete Paradorn Srichaphan's crotch. A Bebe advert on p. 109 displays another full-frontal crotch shot. And on p. 167, a fashion shoot by Kelly Klein highlights yet another full-frontal, spread-legged male crotch rocket. Clad in a silk robe, our near-prone hero has dangled a string of pearls over his midriff. "Barbara Bush has got nothing on me."
But it is the Gucci ad placed just one page before the magazine's masthead that has brows a-sweating, angry pens a-writing, and tongues a-wagging. It is also this advert that successfully secures March's position as the Month of the Prominent Crotch. The Guardian has yawned at the ad's daring and slightly dangerous display of pubic hair shaved into the shape of a capital "g." MarketingWeb's Kim Penstone has asked whether Gucci has gone too far. And Adland has also addressed the controversy surrounding the ad.
It's interesting that this advert hit the stands just before wannabe Boston brahmin began to bawl about a barely bawdlerized FCUK advert insert in the Boston Globe this Sunday. In today's newspaper, the Globe's ombudsman -- or woman, as the case may be -- Christine Chinlund takes it on the chin and collapses under the weight of reader complaint faster than any of the lingerie-clad models would have fallen for one of their male (or female) counterparts. I have no problem with FCUK's naming or branding strategy -- as long as they fess up to the value and vigor of the probable pun.
But Gucci. Whither Gucci? When I first heard about the ad, I was shocked. Shocked. Pubic hair on parade in a newsstand magazine? Then I saw the ad. And you know what? I have no problems with it whatsover. It's hardly titillating, and the male model kneeling before the G-shaved girly girl seems more bemused and confused than aroused. There's little sense of what comes next. So the fantasy hangs in the air and we are left to turn the page and our attention elsewhere -- and to other prominent crotches. Counter to Chinlund's unnecessary concession that the Boston Globe is a family publication -- what daily newspaper shouldn't strive to be so? -- Interview has no such limitation. While a pale shadow of what I think Andy Warhol envisioned, Interview is quite similar to the previous iteration of Details magazine, a periodical focusing on gloss, fashion, and celebrities -- all the while embracing an intriguing queer angle to everything it does.
I think instituting March as the Month of the Prominent Crotch is a fine idea. And I salute Interview for holding the banner so high. Because that way, we can see people's pelvises more prominently.
You might already know that March is Women's History Month. And if you read advertising circulars in the Sunday newspaper, you might also know that March is Frozen Food Month. But if you take some time to flip through the March 2003 issue of Interview magazine, it quickly becomes clear that March is also the Month of the Prominent Crotch. Let's spread ourselves out and take a look, shall we?
Not too far into the book, we come across a two-page Prada spread. Here, a male model wearing an awkward knit sweater, lei, and almost-tartan skirt ensemble raises his left knee to the sky and bunches his eyebrows forward in a glower as if to say, "Look at me! You lookin' at me?" A mere eight pages later, we have a two-page Donna Karan spread in which a well-dressed and high-heeled model with no undershirt demurely knocks her knees while she reads what appears to be an academic journal or book of scientific abstracts. This is perhaps the most tasteful and teasing shot of the crotch in this issue, softcore for randy R&D kids.
On the following page, an oiled-up Dior model flashes the swell of her breast while swooning against a blood-red rubber wall, clutching at her pelvic region with the hand not holding her steady. Eyes closed and lips parted, the model seems to be losing consciousness: "I should eat," she thinks. Six more pages in, Dolce & Gabbana goes ga-ga glancing at a full-frontal crotch shot of a woman spreading her legs for a handheld video camera. Surrounded by no fewer than 10 monitors and two cameras, this is self-mediated crotch prominence at its best. Another showing swell of breast hints that this model is much more than just a crotch. Let's not pigeonhole these people, please.
On p. 70, a 1990 Herb Ritts photograph shows Madonna clutching at her crotch, indicating that the crotch knows no class boundaries. Everyone's got a crotch. P. 77 sports a Matthew Barney advertisement in which a pale-skinned, bee-hived model spreads her legs for the camera's eye too, demurely and delicately crossing her unringed and uncalloused hands in front of her bared crotch. "Don't go there! Oh, whatever, come on," her eyes seem to beckon tiredly. On p. 94, a slightly out-of-focus tennis ball hovers in front of -- and partially obscuring -- Buddhist athlete Paradorn Srichaphan's crotch. A Bebe advert on p. 109 displays another full-frontal crotch shot. And on p. 167, a fashion shoot by Kelly Klein highlights yet another full-frontal, spread-legged male crotch rocket. Clad in a silk robe, our near-prone hero has dangled a string of pearls over his midriff. "Barbara Bush has got nothing on me."
But it is the Gucci ad placed just one page before the magazine's masthead that has brows a-sweating, angry pens a-writing, and tongues a-wagging. It is also this advert that successfully secures March's position as the Month of the Prominent Crotch. The Guardian has yawned at the ad's daring and slightly dangerous display of pubic hair shaved into the shape of a capital "g." MarketingWeb's Kim Penstone has asked whether Gucci has gone too far. And Adland has also addressed the controversy surrounding the ad.
It's interesting that this advert hit the stands just before wannabe Boston brahmin began to bawl about a barely bawdlerized FCUK advert insert in the Boston Globe this Sunday. In today's newspaper, the Globe's ombudsman -- or woman, as the case may be -- Christine Chinlund takes it on the chin and collapses under the weight of reader complaint faster than any of the lingerie-clad models would have fallen for one of their male (or female) counterparts. I have no problem with FCUK's naming or branding strategy -- as long as they fess up to the value and vigor of the probable pun.
But Gucci. Whither Gucci? When I first heard about the ad, I was shocked. Shocked. Pubic hair on parade in a newsstand magazine? Then I saw the ad. And you know what? I have no problems with it whatsover. It's hardly titillating, and the male model kneeling before the G-shaved girly girl seems more bemused and confused than aroused. There's little sense of what comes next. So the fantasy hangs in the air and we are left to turn the page and our attention elsewhere -- and to other prominent crotches. Counter to Chinlund's unnecessary concession that the Boston Globe is a family publication -- what daily newspaper shouldn't strive to be so? -- Interview has no such limitation. While a pale shadow of what I think Andy Warhol envisioned, Interview is quite similar to the previous iteration of Details magazine, a periodical focusing on gloss, fashion, and celebrities -- all the while embracing an intriguing queer angle to everything it does.
I think instituting March as the Month of the Prominent Crotch is a fine idea. And I salute Interview for holding the banner so high. Because that way, we can see people's pelvises more prominently.
Music to My Ears XXX
A three-pack of new record reviews!
The Hardwood Brothers "Hardwoods on Humpnight" (Hardwood)
This is a pre-release version of a live recording made at the Dutchman Inn in Houston. Why pre-release? "We're still trying to figure out the names of some of these tunes, who wrote them, and how to pay royalties!" What we have here are 27 songs performed by the Hardwood Brothers, a five piece playing acoustic guitar, upright bass, harmonica, baritone saxophone, and fiddle. Some of the pieces are covers, and some are originals, and the overall effect is one of Lady and the Mant by way of Harmonious Wail or the Gomers if they were into bluegrass and country swing. While the band comes off as primarily a joke band, their playing is surprisingly adept, and I'm curious where they could go if they took themselves just a little more seriously. Regardless, the CD captures an extremely enjoyable 80 minutes of what must be a great live show. Highlights include Lennon and McCartney's "I've Just Seen a Face," Merle Haggard's "Sing Me Back Home," the Grateful Dead's "Friend of the Devil," and the silly song "D.I.V.O.R.C.E.E." The on-stage banter is friendly, and the Hardwoods' interaction with the crowd is playful. Worth catching live if you can, for sure!
The Movielife Selections from "Forty Hour Train Back to Penn" (Drive-Thru)
I usually avoid reviewing samplers because labels really should send full releases to get a proper review, but this is impressive enough to warrant comment. This "limited edition" CD comprises four songs from the Movielife's new album: "Face or Kneecaps," "Jamestown," "Spanaway," and "Takin' It Out and Choppin' It Up." Based in Long Island, the band suffered a setback in a near-fatal van accident a couple of years ago, and these four songs recorded after the wreck indicate that they haven't broken stride one bit. The first track is an earnest, melodic number that eschews emo leanings for energy and some nice angular guitar work. "Jamestown," the source of the album's title, chronicles the band's almost unfortunate end. The third song features some interesting multi-tracked harmonies by lyricist and vocalist Vinnie Caruana, as well as some subtle piano work. We'll see what the liner notes share, but the press release that accompanied this promotional mailing serves up sone of the positive aftermath of the accident -- a benefit concert featuring the Reunion Show and support from the label to get up and running again. And run Movielife does. The closing track is a fast-paced pleaser with an infectiously humorous chorus. Well done, and way to recover. It's good to see such survival and support in the scene. And if the full length is as solid as this four-song teaser, it should be a great record. But who knows? These could be the four best songs.
Terror "Lowest of the Low" (Bridge 9)
Featuring former members of Buried Alive and Carry On, this aggro hardcore five piece has done recent tour duty with Biohazard and Madball. So their shouted, mosh-tinged hardcore comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise is how angry Terror is. Oh, plenty of metal-influenced hardcore bands are angry, but what is Terror so angry about? Nailing their frustration down is a challenge because Terror's expression of anger is largely an exercise in negative self-definition. Terror takes a stand against pretense, insincere assistance, unrequested support, and, well, a lot of things. At the same time, Terror takes no stands for anything, and their message is mostly one of reaction in a vacuum. This makes the record somewhat sad rather than empowering. Every song expresses frustration and displeasure with how things are, contends that the primary speaker in the songs is alone and has no support -- while avoiding statements of helplessness, however -- and paints a bleak picture of the lyricist's self-esteem and -image -- despite his self-sufficiency. So there's no hope here. Perhaps Terror reflects the isolation and dissatifaction of others, but in the end, if you stand against everything, what do you stand for? Hopefully Terror will tire of tearing everything down and refusing to take the responsibility to create their own future. Then, perhaps, we can build something more positive and productive in its place. As things are, this record is good background music for the disaffected. But it's far from a call to arms.
A three-pack of new record reviews!
The Hardwood Brothers "Hardwoods on Humpnight" (Hardwood)
This is a pre-release version of a live recording made at the Dutchman Inn in Houston. Why pre-release? "We're still trying to figure out the names of some of these tunes, who wrote them, and how to pay royalties!" What we have here are 27 songs performed by the Hardwood Brothers, a five piece playing acoustic guitar, upright bass, harmonica, baritone saxophone, and fiddle. Some of the pieces are covers, and some are originals, and the overall effect is one of Lady and the Mant by way of Harmonious Wail or the Gomers if they were into bluegrass and country swing. While the band comes off as primarily a joke band, their playing is surprisingly adept, and I'm curious where they could go if they took themselves just a little more seriously. Regardless, the CD captures an extremely enjoyable 80 minutes of what must be a great live show. Highlights include Lennon and McCartney's "I've Just Seen a Face," Merle Haggard's "Sing Me Back Home," the Grateful Dead's "Friend of the Devil," and the silly song "D.I.V.O.R.C.E.E." The on-stage banter is friendly, and the Hardwoods' interaction with the crowd is playful. Worth catching live if you can, for sure!
The Movielife Selections from "Forty Hour Train Back to Penn" (Drive-Thru)
I usually avoid reviewing samplers because labels really should send full releases to get a proper review, but this is impressive enough to warrant comment. This "limited edition" CD comprises four songs from the Movielife's new album: "Face or Kneecaps," "Jamestown," "Spanaway," and "Takin' It Out and Choppin' It Up." Based in Long Island, the band suffered a setback in a near-fatal van accident a couple of years ago, and these four songs recorded after the wreck indicate that they haven't broken stride one bit. The first track is an earnest, melodic number that eschews emo leanings for energy and some nice angular guitar work. "Jamestown," the source of the album's title, chronicles the band's almost unfortunate end. The third song features some interesting multi-tracked harmonies by lyricist and vocalist Vinnie Caruana, as well as some subtle piano work. We'll see what the liner notes share, but the press release that accompanied this promotional mailing serves up sone of the positive aftermath of the accident -- a benefit concert featuring the Reunion Show and support from the label to get up and running again. And run Movielife does. The closing track is a fast-paced pleaser with an infectiously humorous chorus. Well done, and way to recover. It's good to see such survival and support in the scene. And if the full length is as solid as this four-song teaser, it should be a great record. But who knows? These could be the four best songs.
Terror "Lowest of the Low" (Bridge 9)
Featuring former members of Buried Alive and Carry On, this aggro hardcore five piece has done recent tour duty with Biohazard and Madball. So their shouted, mosh-tinged hardcore comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise is how angry Terror is. Oh, plenty of metal-influenced hardcore bands are angry, but what is Terror so angry about? Nailing their frustration down is a challenge because Terror's expression of anger is largely an exercise in negative self-definition. Terror takes a stand against pretense, insincere assistance, unrequested support, and, well, a lot of things. At the same time, Terror takes no stands for anything, and their message is mostly one of reaction in a vacuum. This makes the record somewhat sad rather than empowering. Every song expresses frustration and displeasure with how things are, contends that the primary speaker in the songs is alone and has no support -- while avoiding statements of helplessness, however -- and paints a bleak picture of the lyricist's self-esteem and -image -- despite his self-sufficiency. So there's no hope here. Perhaps Terror reflects the isolation and dissatifaction of others, but in the end, if you stand against everything, what do you stand for? Hopefully Terror will tire of tearing everything down and refusing to take the responsibility to create their own future. Then, perhaps, we can build something more positive and productive in its place. As things are, this record is good background music for the disaffected. But it's far from a call to arms.
The Movie I Watched Last Night LX
Saturday: The Twilight Zone
In "A Passage for Trumpet," which originally aired May 20, 1960, Jack Klugman plays a down-on-his-luck, alcoholic trumpet player who waits in the back alley of a nightclub to persuade an old friend to let him play. His character's monologue on the meaning of his music and how half of his language is inside his horn is wonderful. But the scene in which he notices that the trumpet he just sold for $8.50 is now in the pawn shop window priced $25 is quite sad. While the purgatory sequence is fun, the ending is slightly disappointing. Still, a good episode with an interesting Angel Gabriel cameo. "Mr. Dingle, the Strong" originally aired March 3, 1955, and is a silly twist on the Willy Loman story. Burgess Meredith plays an inept, cowardly vacuum cleaner salesman who is embued with superhuman strength by two horribly costumed aliens. Meredith's stutter contradicts his strength well, but all in all, the episode isn't that great. Still, it's neat to see Meredith tear a phonebook in half. The dramatic and fey TV announcer with the unplugged but oft-used microphone is a highlight, as is Meredith's growing confidence until his anticlimactic end. Don Rickles' presence is appreciated. The third episode on the DVD, "Two," which originally aired Sept. 15, 1961, has a great opening line: "This is a jungle, a monument built by nature commemorating disuse." After a slightly more interesting title sequence, we are presented with the story of a city that's been abandoned for five years after enemy foot troops land on Earth. Two survivors, one male, one female -- including a young Charles Bronson -- have to determine the future of both of their races. "There are no longer any armies, just rags of different colors that were once uniforms." A good episode to watch on the day the Stand up for Peace rally was held along Massachusetts Avenue. Lastly, "The Four of Us Are Dying" originally aired Jan. 1, 1960. Perhaps the darkest and most twisted take on the human condition on this DVD, the episode features a man who can change his facial features at will. He impersonates several people who have disappeared, tinkering with the lives and loves of those who remain behind. Then he adopts the persona of a boxer to escape some thugs in an alley -- only to encounter the boxer's estranged father, and his own strange end. Rod Serling-era Twilight Zone episodes rock.
Sunday: Sneakers
Movies like this give me hope that Dan Aykroyd isn't a washed-up has been. In fact, for a movie about computer hacking and cryptography, this movie's cast comprises a surprising number of stars: Aykroyd, Robert Redford, a young River Phoenix, and Sidney Poitier. A Ghostbusters-like clutch of cryptographers, hackers, and cat burglars are enlisted to recover a little black box that can break any code. Redford's character has a countercultural past from his days at Harvard (That was the Widener Library, wasn't it?), and the team quickly learns that they were hired by people who weren't as they claimed. So they decide to try to reclaim the box. It's a fun movie that casts security hacking in a surprisingly sensitive light circa 1992, and the mystery is convoluted enough that you're kept guessing for much of the movie. In the end, the hackers win, of course, but it's sure fun getting there. Ben Kingsley plays a wonderful misguided, evil genius. And the scene in which the blind Whistler -- played by David Strathairn -- commandeers a van to save the day is a one to root for. Surprisingly good, and it's held up well for the last 10-plus years.
Saturday: The Twilight Zone
In "A Passage for Trumpet," which originally aired May 20, 1960, Jack Klugman plays a down-on-his-luck, alcoholic trumpet player who waits in the back alley of a nightclub to persuade an old friend to let him play. His character's monologue on the meaning of his music and how half of his language is inside his horn is wonderful. But the scene in which he notices that the trumpet he just sold for $8.50 is now in the pawn shop window priced $25 is quite sad. While the purgatory sequence is fun, the ending is slightly disappointing. Still, a good episode with an interesting Angel Gabriel cameo. "Mr. Dingle, the Strong" originally aired March 3, 1955, and is a silly twist on the Willy Loman story. Burgess Meredith plays an inept, cowardly vacuum cleaner salesman who is embued with superhuman strength by two horribly costumed aliens. Meredith's stutter contradicts his strength well, but all in all, the episode isn't that great. Still, it's neat to see Meredith tear a phonebook in half. The dramatic and fey TV announcer with the unplugged but oft-used microphone is a highlight, as is Meredith's growing confidence until his anticlimactic end. Don Rickles' presence is appreciated. The third episode on the DVD, "Two," which originally aired Sept. 15, 1961, has a great opening line: "This is a jungle, a monument built by nature commemorating disuse." After a slightly more interesting title sequence, we are presented with the story of a city that's been abandoned for five years after enemy foot troops land on Earth. Two survivors, one male, one female -- including a young Charles Bronson -- have to determine the future of both of their races. "There are no longer any armies, just rags of different colors that were once uniforms." A good episode to watch on the day the Stand up for Peace rally was held along Massachusetts Avenue. Lastly, "The Four of Us Are Dying" originally aired Jan. 1, 1960. Perhaps the darkest and most twisted take on the human condition on this DVD, the episode features a man who can change his facial features at will. He impersonates several people who have disappeared, tinkering with the lives and loves of those who remain behind. Then he adopts the persona of a boxer to escape some thugs in an alley -- only to encounter the boxer's estranged father, and his own strange end. Rod Serling-era Twilight Zone episodes rock.
Sunday: Sneakers
Movies like this give me hope that Dan Aykroyd isn't a washed-up has been. In fact, for a movie about computer hacking and cryptography, this movie's cast comprises a surprising number of stars: Aykroyd, Robert Redford, a young River Phoenix, and Sidney Poitier. A Ghostbusters-like clutch of cryptographers, hackers, and cat burglars are enlisted to recover a little black box that can break any code. Redford's character has a countercultural past from his days at Harvard (That was the Widener Library, wasn't it?), and the team quickly learns that they were hired by people who weren't as they claimed. So they decide to try to reclaim the box. It's a fun movie that casts security hacking in a surprisingly sensitive light circa 1992, and the mystery is convoluted enough that you're kept guessing for much of the movie. In the end, the hackers win, of course, but it's sure fun getting there. Ben Kingsley plays a wonderful misguided, evil genius. And the scene in which the blind Whistler -- played by David Strathairn -- commandeers a van to save the day is a one to root for. Surprisingly good, and it's held up well for the last 10-plus years.
Music to My Eyes XIII
Handstand Command now offers the entire Unstoppable Records' back catalog at a glance online. As the collective's third anniversary -- and the CD release party for the Anchormen's forthcoming CD, "Nation of Interns" -- nears, we're fondly recalling our collective past. Catch up with some of the Handstand history and take a short walk down memory lane with us.
Handstand Command now offers the entire Unstoppable Records' back catalog at a glance online. As the collective's third anniversary -- and the CD release party for the Anchormen's forthcoming CD, "Nation of Interns" -- nears, we're fondly recalling our collective past. Catch up with some of the Handstand history and take a short walk down memory lane with us.
Friday, March 14, 2003
Workaday World XXI
What a day! I stayed up not too late last night -- but definitely too lively. A bunch of us went out to the Drummer and Paddy Burke's, and while I was home by 11:30 last night, I was a little slow and mopey this morning. Following the relaunch of the CoF Web at the end of January, today was the deadline for members to confirm their involvement. I emailed the people who haven't yet confirmed their memberships a deactivation notice earlier today, and I've been working on customer service emails as a result for a large part of the day.
I also spent time researching and considering the entries for this year's Webby Awards. As the Communitt category chair, I worked with a qualified team of nominating judges. It's not been as tightly connected or collaborative a team as we've had for the last few years, but I'm pleased with my final five suggestions for nominees. We'll see what the others vote on for the final mix!
It''s 5:40, and the sun's still out. Spring's a poppin'!
I hope.
What a day! I stayed up not too late last night -- but definitely too lively. A bunch of us went out to the Drummer and Paddy Burke's, and while I was home by 11:30 last night, I was a little slow and mopey this morning. Following the relaunch of the CoF Web at the end of January, today was the deadline for members to confirm their involvement. I emailed the people who haven't yet confirmed their memberships a deactivation notice earlier today, and I've been working on customer service emails as a result for a large part of the day.
I also spent time researching and considering the entries for this year's Webby Awards. As the Communitt category chair, I worked with a qualified team of nominating judges. It's not been as tightly connected or collaborative a team as we've had for the last few years, but I'm pleased with my final five suggestions for nominees. We'll see what the others vote on for the final mix!
It''s 5:40, and the sun's still out. Spring's a poppin'!
I hope.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
South by Southwest 2003 XXI
I have two more SXSW Interactive-related entries left in me. Then I need to let it go, get it behind me, and get back to Media Diet's usual business. One of the entries will be my wrapup of and commentary on the entire event's discussions, in which I'll draw connections between the different sessions I sat in on and try to make some conclusions.
This is not that. This entry is a quick explanation of what I was trying to do, how it felt -- and how I think it went. These thoughts aren't fully formed, but I wanted to share a little glimpse of the process behind my SXSW reports. This is that.
I've long been interested in what I consider Immediate Journalism. The Web reports I've filed during the last four annual Company of Friends Roadshows for Fast Company magazine are the outcome of my first experiments with Immediate Journalism.
For the last four years, I've taken six weeks out of the office to cut a swath across part of the world. I stay with Fast Company readers in their homes. I visit two or three companies and organizations during the day. I gather with members of the local CoF groups in the evening. And I document everything I do, experience, and learn in almost-daily diary entries on the Web. People can follow me as I travel, and when I finally get back home after the six weeks, I write an essay highlighting the major themes that arose over the course of the trip.
This experiment was slightly different. Highly inspired by Cory Doctorow's conference and panel reports in Boing Boing, I wanted to see how else this Immediate Journalism could be done. Cory's reports are relatively impressionistic compilations of what he considers the major points, ideas, and concepts of a given talk. I didn't want to copycat Cory, and I didn't want to compete with Cory, had he planned to file SXSW reports as he's done for other gatherings. So I could either go shorter. Or longer.
I chose longer. I type really, really fast, so I was able to capture almost verbatim transcripts of what went on. Oh, I didn't catch everything, but I'm pretty sure I caught almost everything. But why go so long? Why strive to be such a completist? Many conference organizers opt to audio record the event's keynote speakers and breakout sessions. SXSW does not. And if we look at projects such as DharmaNet (for whom I've transcribed Buddhist texts in the past), the Open Pamphlet Series, and Big Sur tapes, the Left and counterculture has a long history of making talk transcripts, audio recordings, and interview-driven pamphlets widely available. The world of technology culture has no such parallel. If people are going to publish a pamphlet every time Noam Chomsky spits up soup, why aren't talks given by people such as Lawrence Lessig, Bruce Sterling, and others similarly captured, published, and distributed -- online or offline? We're losing an important part of our industry and culture's conversation and history. (That's not a slag on Chomsky, by the way.)
Similarly, I just wanted to see if I could do it. And making such an effort to transcribe everything, typing real-time transcripts as the speakers spoke, lightly editing them, and publishing them -- most of the time -- mere minutes after a session ended really changed my experience of the event. While I like to think I was present and engaged with my friends outside of sessions, inside the breakout rooms, it was just me, what I heard, my head, my hands, and my PowerBook. It was kind of neat when I'd really get in the zone and almost fall away so I was typing automatically. I almost wasn't paying attention to what was being said. I wasn't ascribing any meaning to the sounds and words I was entering into the blank Word document. I wasn't really there.
But it wasn't easy. While I'm not a trained stenographer -- lots of SXSW participants have asked -- and while my hands didn't really hurt at the ends of the days, my head did kind of hurt. When you're trying not to be present or actively engaged in a given situation, when you're only trying to document, project, and reflect what's happening, you get this thin feeling. You're fragile. Light like balsa wood. And it took some effort to come out of the near-fugue state to be present and in the moment again. For much of the conference I was distracted and inattentive. That was a weird state for me to be in -- actually, that's not totally true because I'm pretty hyper -- and if any of the people I hung out noticed or were bothered by it, I apologize.
So. How'd it go? Great. I'll do it again. Response on site was amazing, and word quickly spread throughout the conference that I was documenting the talks so thoroughly. Some people made decisions on what sessions to go to based on what session I was going to go to. If I was going to publish a transcript of a given panel, people felt free to go elsewhere. That brings up some interesting traffic flow and attendance questions. I hope I didn't gut people's headcounts because I was there in the room. I also hope that Cory, who didn't report on much at SXSW -- but who has said he was busy in his own panels and sessions -- didn't choose not to take notes because I was. I have him and Boing Boing to thank for most of the people coming to Media Diet to read my SXSW reports. Boing Boing far and away drove more traffic to Media Diet over the last week than the other folks I've given shouts out to. That speaks well of Boing Boing's readership and influence.
How was Media Diet traffic affected? Let's go to the traffic logs. Since I started doing Media Diet in June 2001, I've averaged about 100 readers -- unique visitors -- a day. Thank you, faithful Media Dieticians! But let's look at the last handful of days:
Hopefully, some of y'all will decide to stick around. I've gotten several emails from people who weren't able to make it to Austin for the conference thanking me for the reports, and I think that response to date goes to show that if your blog or journalism is of widespread interest, extremely timely, and not replicated elsewhere, readers will follow. That's part of why I don't regularly blog stuff that's already hit Boing Boing, Blogdex, or Daypop. Don't just mimic the memes that are already reveling in the blogosphere. Do the new. People will pick up on it.
What would I do differently? I'd let the speakers know what I wanted to do -- and get their verbal permission. A couple of people were slightly surprised that what they'd just said showed up on the Web so quickly after they finished saying it, and I apologize for the surprise. The good thing is that everyone felt like I accurately captured their remarks, so the concern of misreporting their comments was relatively low.
OK. I think that's enough. I would like to thank some of the people who really made my SXSW Interactive experience worthwhile. This, then, is a potentially incomplete alphabetical thank-you list.
Thank you: The 15 bus, Lauri Apple, Lane Becker, BookPeople, Ben Brown, Heather Champ, Joe Clark, Viki Collier, Michael Cruftbox, Cory Doctorow, Dudley Dog, Dan Gillmor, Heather Gold, Adam Greenfield, Scott Heiferman, Hiromi Hiraoka, James Hong, Don Jarrell, Kyle Johnson, Pableaux Johnson, Morris Johnston, Philip Kaplan, Will Kreth, Eric Lawrence, Jon Lebkowsky, Gordon Meyer, Monkeywrench, Jim Munroe, Jason Nolan, David Nunez, Anitra Pavka, Derek Powazek, Melissa Quackenbush, Theresa Quintanilla, Dana Robinson, Ana Sisnett, Kevin Smokler, Molly Steenson, Bruce Sterling, Sandy Stone, Toy Joy, Don Turnbull, Mike Wasylik, David Weinberger, Rick Weller, Nancy White, Evan Williams, and Amy Yan. If I forgot anyone, let me know. You all rock me like a hurricane.
I have two more SXSW Interactive-related entries left in me. Then I need to let it go, get it behind me, and get back to Media Diet's usual business. One of the entries will be my wrapup of and commentary on the entire event's discussions, in which I'll draw connections between the different sessions I sat in on and try to make some conclusions.
This is not that. This entry is a quick explanation of what I was trying to do, how it felt -- and how I think it went. These thoughts aren't fully formed, but I wanted to share a little glimpse of the process behind my SXSW reports. This is that.
I've long been interested in what I consider Immediate Journalism. The Web reports I've filed during the last four annual Company of Friends Roadshows for Fast Company magazine are the outcome of my first experiments with Immediate Journalism.
For the last four years, I've taken six weeks out of the office to cut a swath across part of the world. I stay with Fast Company readers in their homes. I visit two or three companies and organizations during the day. I gather with members of the local CoF groups in the evening. And I document everything I do, experience, and learn in almost-daily diary entries on the Web. People can follow me as I travel, and when I finally get back home after the six weeks, I write an essay highlighting the major themes that arose over the course of the trip.
This experiment was slightly different. Highly inspired by Cory Doctorow's conference and panel reports in Boing Boing, I wanted to see how else this Immediate Journalism could be done. Cory's reports are relatively impressionistic compilations of what he considers the major points, ideas, and concepts of a given talk. I didn't want to copycat Cory, and I didn't want to compete with Cory, had he planned to file SXSW reports as he's done for other gatherings. So I could either go shorter. Or longer.
I chose longer. I type really, really fast, so I was able to capture almost verbatim transcripts of what went on. Oh, I didn't catch everything, but I'm pretty sure I caught almost everything. But why go so long? Why strive to be such a completist? Many conference organizers opt to audio record the event's keynote speakers and breakout sessions. SXSW does not. And if we look at projects such as DharmaNet (for whom I've transcribed Buddhist texts in the past), the Open Pamphlet Series, and Big Sur tapes, the Left and counterculture has a long history of making talk transcripts, audio recordings, and interview-driven pamphlets widely available. The world of technology culture has no such parallel. If people are going to publish a pamphlet every time Noam Chomsky spits up soup, why aren't talks given by people such as Lawrence Lessig, Bruce Sterling, and others similarly captured, published, and distributed -- online or offline? We're losing an important part of our industry and culture's conversation and history. (That's not a slag on Chomsky, by the way.)
Similarly, I just wanted to see if I could do it. And making such an effort to transcribe everything, typing real-time transcripts as the speakers spoke, lightly editing them, and publishing them -- most of the time -- mere minutes after a session ended really changed my experience of the event. While I like to think I was present and engaged with my friends outside of sessions, inside the breakout rooms, it was just me, what I heard, my head, my hands, and my PowerBook. It was kind of neat when I'd really get in the zone and almost fall away so I was typing automatically. I almost wasn't paying attention to what was being said. I wasn't ascribing any meaning to the sounds and words I was entering into the blank Word document. I wasn't really there.
But it wasn't easy. While I'm not a trained stenographer -- lots of SXSW participants have asked -- and while my hands didn't really hurt at the ends of the days, my head did kind of hurt. When you're trying not to be present or actively engaged in a given situation, when you're only trying to document, project, and reflect what's happening, you get this thin feeling. You're fragile. Light like balsa wood. And it took some effort to come out of the near-fugue state to be present and in the moment again. For much of the conference I was distracted and inattentive. That was a weird state for me to be in -- actually, that's not totally true because I'm pretty hyper -- and if any of the people I hung out noticed or were bothered by it, I apologize.
So. How'd it go? Great. I'll do it again. Response on site was amazing, and word quickly spread throughout the conference that I was documenting the talks so thoroughly. Some people made decisions on what sessions to go to based on what session I was going to go to. If I was going to publish a transcript of a given panel, people felt free to go elsewhere. That brings up some interesting traffic flow and attendance questions. I hope I didn't gut people's headcounts because I was there in the room. I also hope that Cory, who didn't report on much at SXSW -- but who has said he was busy in his own panels and sessions -- didn't choose not to take notes because I was. I have him and Boing Boing to thank for most of the people coming to Media Diet to read my SXSW reports. Boing Boing far and away drove more traffic to Media Diet over the last week than the other folks I've given shouts out to. That speaks well of Boing Boing's readership and influence.
How was Media Diet traffic affected? Let's go to the traffic logs. Since I started doing Media Diet in June 2001, I've averaged about 100 readers -- unique visitors -- a day. Thank you, faithful Media Dieticians! But let's look at the last handful of days:
March 7: 100
March 8: 223
March 9: 450
March 10: 686
March 11: 400
March 12: 375
March 13: 599 (as of 5:08 p.m.)
Hopefully, some of y'all will decide to stick around. I've gotten several emails from people who weren't able to make it to Austin for the conference thanking me for the reports, and I think that response to date goes to show that if your blog or journalism is of widespread interest, extremely timely, and not replicated elsewhere, readers will follow. That's part of why I don't regularly blog stuff that's already hit Boing Boing, Blogdex, or Daypop. Don't just mimic the memes that are already reveling in the blogosphere. Do the new. People will pick up on it.
What would I do differently? I'd let the speakers know what I wanted to do -- and get their verbal permission. A couple of people were slightly surprised that what they'd just said showed up on the Web so quickly after they finished saying it, and I apologize for the surprise. The good thing is that everyone felt like I accurately captured their remarks, so the concern of misreporting their comments was relatively low.
OK. I think that's enough. I would like to thank some of the people who really made my SXSW Interactive experience worthwhile. This, then, is a potentially incomplete alphabetical thank-you list.
Thank you: The 15 bus, Lauri Apple, Lane Becker, BookPeople, Ben Brown, Heather Champ, Joe Clark, Viki Collier, Michael Cruftbox, Cory Doctorow, Dudley Dog, Dan Gillmor, Heather Gold, Adam Greenfield, Scott Heiferman, Hiromi Hiraoka, James Hong, Don Jarrell, Kyle Johnson, Pableaux Johnson, Morris Johnston, Philip Kaplan, Will Kreth, Eric Lawrence, Jon Lebkowsky, Gordon Meyer, Monkeywrench, Jim Munroe, Jason Nolan, David Nunez, Anitra Pavka, Derek Powazek, Melissa Quackenbush, Theresa Quintanilla, Dana Robinson, Ana Sisnett, Kevin Smokler, Molly Steenson, Bruce Sterling, Sandy Stone, Toy Joy, Don Turnbull, Mike Wasylik, David Weinberger, Rick Weller, Nancy White, Evan Williams, and Amy Yan. If I forgot anyone, let me know. You all rock me like a hurricane.
Corollary: Mention Me! XXXIV
One more shout out, then I'll stop eyeing my reference logs.
Die Puny Humans
Phew!
One more shout out, then I'll stop eyeing my reference logs.
Phew!
South by Southwest 2003 XX
One last batch of SXSW Interactive reports. Nancy White took some great notes on Cliff Figallo's session Tuesday morning, which I missed. Here's Nancy's report, barely edited:
Cliff Figallo: Putting Online Conversation to Work
Attention is energy. If a small child is acting out, giving them attention gives energy to those behaviors. Online you have to pay attention to whom you are paying attention. Pay attention to negative behaviors, you "feed the energy creature."
These are concepts we’ve put to work. Having a conversation you want to get things out of consider:
Who’s talking
Intentions
Commitment
Tolerance
Traction
A productive conversation can only happen under certain conditions. Forcing people who don’t exhibit the right intention, commitment, tolerance -- sometimes you have to be selective as to who you invite. The Well said anyone with a modem, money and could navigate on, they could join. Everything else was up for grabs. Stuart Brand thought it would be good to have people with communal experience managing this thing rather than business or technological experience. There were tradeoffs there, but we did understand what it took for a community to be productive. In this case, be functional. We went through quite a learning phase in the first 5 years. Some people could inhibit others from participating in an online conversation. How can we make these things work when people who are more willing to join the conversation could dominate a conversation and send it off in directions that chase people away.
We’ve learned a lot over the years. Now millions online who have experienced chat, online communities. Seen how they can work and be a total pain in the ass. It would keep people up at night on the well because there was such hope that people would join this group, writers, consultants who did not work with a team on a day by day basis. They had a hope that the well would thrive as a community. When someone came and tried to crash the party, they wanted us to throw them off, but we did not want to be the despots, the cops. We wanted the community to sort out it’s own problems. There were cases where we had to remove people because they were detractors from the conversation. It’s important to know who’s talking
Intentional Community
If you have an intention about a conversation in an organization or business. Shared sense of mission, purpose, ethos. It is then easier to solve problems. All aimed in the same direction and willing to tolerate each other. To listen as well as talk.
Nardi, Whittaker and Schwarz called them "Intentional Networks’ PERSONAL Social networks. "We chose the term intentional to reflect the effort and deliberateness with which people construct and manage personal networks.
In a conversation in NY last Fall, Listening to the City, a conversation about what to do with the site around ground zero. WHT TO do with that neighborhood, how to redevelop Manhattan. They had a 1 day F2F LARGE Meeting with tables of ten with facilitators and laptops who collected the conversational themes and feelings and fed them back to the larger group. Briefly they formed an intentional conversational community. All of their aims were tom come up with a good solution for where the WTC had been blown up. Even though they did not agree- some were strongly opinionated that it be a symbolic building that NY will not be defeated, we’ll put up something bigger. The final design is taller.
We took this online the week after in groups of 30. Half with facilitators and half without facilitator. All could read each other’s conversations. Most of the groups that did not have an assigned facilitator, one rose from the ranks and took on that role to lead the conversation. It was quite and emotional couple of weeks. Some had lost close relatives, friends, involved in recover efforts, had seen the towers collapsed. Everyone had a strong emotion around it and willing to engage in the conversation. But there were differences between groups. Some people were tying to shout their positions down the throats of other people. We call them the tall towers people. Bu t there were other people who were victims family who said the memorial was most important. There were complaints that they were getting more than their representative voice. It wasn’t
fair that their emotions were going to sway how things would developed.
Mostly people were concerned about the trust that their input would be part of the decision. They hoped to have some effect on the decision makers. As it turned out it really did. The F2f conversation was widely reported as expressing strong disapproval to the initial plans. Based on that the publicity of getting this strong disapproval and sent everyone back to the drawing board. The online conversations contributed that yes it was important that the towers be tall and there be a memorial. And the chose design reflects this.
Trust, Identity, Reputation
These are concepts you see being talked about on the web. Software is being developed and put in to portal software. I was associated with a company called RealCommunities which had a flexible database where people could establish identity and a reputation management module. A lot of this stuff operates in our daily life according to where we trust people, what we know of their identity and reputation. When engaging in online conversations with people online you rely on many other factors to determine if it is worthwhile in engaging in the conversation. You are investing your time. Don’t want to feel like you’ve wasted it.
What we found on the Well when we all came together, a bunch of people who didn’t know each other with just a bunch of words on a screen connecting. Came to a point when Howard Rheingold and Howard Mandel started a conference called "True Confessions." It was basically a place where people could write stories about themselves. Up until them people learned just what they learned about each other in conversations about politics, news, sports. That was valuable especially if you engaged in conversations across topics. A person in politics might be a flaming liberal and you were conservative, but in the parenting conference both have kids and shared experiences. A multidimensional relationship, the way it is in real life, we know each other from at least two different contexts. Helps us get a sense of what these people are. IN True CONFESSIONAS once they saw a bit more about each other’s background, it opened up the community. They knew this person was what they stood for, what they’d been through, why they were what they were.
Leadership
When you start a conversational community you will find different kinds of leaders. Founders who understand the mission, where the conversation is supposed to go, who was invited and why. The Implementers who actually start the conversations, comfortable with the tools, recognize what to do with the vision provided by the founders. The Sustainers hang in there. The facilitators, the challengers who keep volatility in the conversation and attract more people to it because conversations generally want to expand.
Power Imbalances Destabilize
Make it difficult for people to trust. Today’s world situation. People don’t necessarily want to go along. They don’t want the US to say not only are we the most wealthy, but powerful, military strength, democracy – and thus our vision is the most powerful vision. But will we be kept in our place. Will other nations keep their validity. France is digging in it’s heels. Other countries are digging in their heels.
The Truth Will Out
The internet has lent this whole other side to propaganda. You can’t keep a lid on things anymore. There will be other visions represented. Blogging, even though its in principle the same internet publishing model, we’re probably being blogged as we speak -- this element was not there when Berners-Lee put up the initial web pages. Blogging is now a medium, or an application of the medium, that allows many viewpoints to come together, cross represent each other, disagree with each other. A wide conversation that when used well in communities in trust -- which does nto mean you necessarily agree, but you understand where they are coming from, but as long as you believe they are speaking from the heart, you have a level of trust that they are a known element, not a maverick, one who spoofs you.
In a conversation if the truth doesn’t out, if people don’t agree to speak truthfully, not a balance of weight in the conversation, and least everyone going in the same direction of having a productive conversation rather than shouting each other out. On the well we had "subtext" you could read a conversation and tell if there was dissatisfaction or lack of cred under the surface. People might not say it, but a vibe, of argument running below the surface. In an online discussion that happens on a company’s intranet you will find a lot of that. People are afraid to really express what they believe because their jobs at stake. If the company does not have a culture that encourage people to say what they believe, if people don’t’ feel they can say what they believe, it will still come across in refusal to participate or what you can read between the lines. People’s subconscious. Belief system at work that they did not want to express because it would create a hassle, an argument. But their subconscious will still come through in how they talked.
This is part of the problem with business culture and how it’s developed through the years. In the first couple of chapters of Building the KM Network, we run through a quick history of civilization and how we got through the industrial age, how orgs formed in a hierarchical sense built on a military model. Was not important what the lower ranks thought. Whoever was running the place held all the knowledge and wisdom, hired lower ranks with wisdom and now power. The net has broken into distributed non hierarchical model. Business has not caught up. They go through team building sessions and OD trying to enable a more open and distributed conversation, but still that power balance exists if the upper levels of management don’t participate in conversations that cut across the layers. At the Well it mattered that Steward Brand as founder of the Well participated. But he was sort of thin skinned. If anyone criticized his vision or suggestions, he didn’t stick around very long. We always wished that he would. He was initially a very vocal participant but when the hard questions started he did not feel it was necessary to answer them. That’s when the leadership model has to move on. When the founders and CEOS aren’t going to participate… now the customers are much more powered. They can talk to each other. They can talk about products through boards such as Epinions, online gatherings like on Edmonds.com about their cars, and if the company is not going to be part of this conversation, its going to suffer from not getting, taking and using that feedback. I think not being a CEO and not choosing to work within a company as an employee, throwing rocks from over the wall as a consultant, my council is that companies have to evolve. Look at Enron and all these scandals. If these conversations aren’t enabled with in the company all kinds of things can take place. If they aren’t talking about it they see how it gets out of control. Companies, careers, 401Ks ruined. It’s hard to visualize what its like working in a co with tens of thousands of employees and how you get them started. But conversations start incrementally and can spread within organizations.
What do you do about power imbalances? First acknowledge it. That there is that difference between the person who is operating from a higher rung on the ladder One of the people I worked with on the LTC forum came up with the idea of a "Full Value Contract." When a conversation is engaged, in this case online, that going into it everyone agrees that they are going to give full value to the conversation. They make an agreement going in that they are gong to listen, respect, do what they can to encourage each other to speak, not dominate the conversation, do everything they can to make the conversation as useful for ist purpose as they can. It’s a very important idea that you have an agreement, which formalizes the conversation more than they usually are. Usually more ad hoc. People set up a forum, invite people, a topic. But as far as any kind of social contract they have to evolve over time. On the Well we had "you own your own words" which was formulated to protect the well from liability but adopted as a rallying cry for personal copyright issues. Social contracts evolved by trial and error. When you go into a conversation you set up for a purpose, presenting everyone with some sort of contractually worded agreement can really help, especially where there is a power imbalance so everyone assumes an equal role, even with different levels of responsibility. If a biz is going to have an online discussion w/ CEO and higher folks, that they declare this is the way it is going to be. Not a George Bush press conf where you have to ask the right questions to get picked on.
I don’t that’s really what you are looking for. You are looking for true identity. If you use an alias that allows the person with the higher power position to act like a fly on wall, Joe Everyman and speak. It might be useful for them, but for everyone else, fi they don’t know this.
I was thinking more of a person with some dominant power enters the conversation; it tends to polarize the conversation by dint of their identity. If you wanted exchange of content, not identity, it would make it a more level playing field.
[Cliff asked Nancy what she thought. She talked about unintended consequences of anonymity and the importance of treating root issues at the root. Organizational warts just appear even bigger online.]
It’s (anonymity) tempting. Does it create a false sense of security? What is the organization is about? An organization that does not operating to certain ideals in the offline world, online they have to be based in reality. We are proposing to do work with a company that is promoting the idea of the democratic workplace. They have models and theories and they want to start online discussion. There are plusses and minuses to the democratic workplace.
Gonna rip through the rest of the presentation (clock ticking)
Looping
Getting into an argument …saying if we oust Sadam Hussein it’s going to reduce terrorism and the others say increase and it goes around and around. You don’t’ want to spend time doing that. We’re in a loop and shoot for common ground. Sorting, looking for the exit point to looping conversations. Diplomacy, as we’re seeing, does not work all that great when it is relegated to national PR> What are the conversations that are really happening. People being diplomatic can lead to beating around the bush. Talk about the real stuff even if it is hard. You shouldn’t have to have to use diplomacy. Spit it out and say what you mean.
Not getting Work Done
Diplomacy -- communications out of network
Politics and movingon.org
Gaming and competition (winners and losers is not what getting work done is about. It’s about achieving and cooperating
Gratuitous complexity -- run in to it a lot. With intranet development. We’ve done this and this -- really good business for software consulting development, but it delays getting conversations done via email lists or simple discussion tools. A lot of companies are seeing people use IMs because they need it and it works
Summary
Reveal all motives
Agree on a vision
Share the floor (keep posts to reasonable length)
No praise, no blame (comes out of the communal era -- don’t heap praise on people all the time. When you praise one and others don’t get it, this creates difference much like blame. Keep even keep for appreciating and thanking for contributions. Don’t get excessive.
No free riders -- people should not benefit from a conversation if they don’t’ support it. Tom, we see 80% are readers but they benefit from it. IN an online health support community, they want to see what other people are saying. That is a different context. To solve something then they should all be contributing.
Hooray for progress -- praise the progress you have all made. Make sure everybody notes it to encourage continued participation.
Questions
What’s the best tool for online conversations?
I began with asynchronous message boards and certain features of these boards were key. You could always look up who people were. ON well you could always look up people. Have seen effective email lists, newsgroups, and today blogs are incredibly powerful, especially if Dave Weinberger, who was here earlier, is a model of how somebody who has attained credibility, a very good interesting entertaining writer, connected with other people and they quote and point -- has created this huge, expanded conversation. Blogs can be used by companies, CoPs, as a very powerful medium for linking in not only other peoples comments, but current information. I read Dave’s Blog like I read the NYTimes on the web. Sometimes he’s talking about his family, a convergence, an idea. He forms a core of a specialize conversation that’s happening across many areas. He’s an integrator. Serving as a great model. Bruce Sterling has his Viridian list about global warming. He calls himself the Pope of the list, sole publisher, but includes many people who are related and creates a distributed conversation. Our approach as we get more sophisticated we have a range of tools, skills and publishing models that are happening.
Q: I work for a national nonprofit and part of the charter is to create an online community, but there’s difficulty because there is a Federally project there tends to be a lot of moderator censoring. Difficult to get the free flowing conversations going. Before things are even put online. Self defeating situation
A: That’s the thing about getting funding. If part of the funding proposal does not specify that censorship is not part of the people, once people realize if they say something that crosses the power, then the funding disappears. You have to question how much you are going to accomplish. There’s a lot of power in open discussions.
One last batch of SXSW Interactive reports. Nancy White took some great notes on Cliff Figallo's session Tuesday morning, which I missed. Here's Nancy's report, barely edited:
Cliff Figallo: Putting Online Conversation to Work
Attention is energy. If a small child is acting out, giving them attention gives energy to those behaviors. Online you have to pay attention to whom you are paying attention. Pay attention to negative behaviors, you "feed the energy creature."
These are concepts we’ve put to work. Having a conversation you want to get things out of consider:
A productive conversation can only happen under certain conditions. Forcing people who don’t exhibit the right intention, commitment, tolerance -- sometimes you have to be selective as to who you invite. The Well said anyone with a modem, money and could navigate on, they could join. Everything else was up for grabs. Stuart Brand thought it would be good to have people with communal experience managing this thing rather than business or technological experience. There were tradeoffs there, but we did understand what it took for a community to be productive. In this case, be functional. We went through quite a learning phase in the first 5 years. Some people could inhibit others from participating in an online conversation. How can we make these things work when people who are more willing to join the conversation could dominate a conversation and send it off in directions that chase people away.
We’ve learned a lot over the years. Now millions online who have experienced chat, online communities. Seen how they can work and be a total pain in the ass. It would keep people up at night on the well because there was such hope that people would join this group, writers, consultants who did not work with a team on a day by day basis. They had a hope that the well would thrive as a community. When someone came and tried to crash the party, they wanted us to throw them off, but we did not want to be the despots, the cops. We wanted the community to sort out it’s own problems. There were cases where we had to remove people because they were detractors from the conversation. It’s important to know who’s talking
Intentional Community
If you have an intention about a conversation in an organization or business. Shared sense of mission, purpose, ethos. It is then easier to solve problems. All aimed in the same direction and willing to tolerate each other. To listen as well as talk.
Nardi, Whittaker and Schwarz called them "Intentional Networks’ PERSONAL Social networks. "We chose the term intentional to reflect the effort and deliberateness with which people construct and manage personal networks.
In a conversation in NY last Fall, Listening to the City, a conversation about what to do with the site around ground zero. WHT TO do with that neighborhood, how to redevelop Manhattan. They had a 1 day F2F LARGE Meeting with tables of ten with facilitators and laptops who collected the conversational themes and feelings and fed them back to the larger group. Briefly they formed an intentional conversational community. All of their aims were tom come up with a good solution for where the WTC had been blown up. Even though they did not agree- some were strongly opinionated that it be a symbolic building that NY will not be defeated, we’ll put up something bigger. The final design is taller.
We took this online the week after in groups of 30. Half with facilitators and half without facilitator. All could read each other’s conversations. Most of the groups that did not have an assigned facilitator, one rose from the ranks and took on that role to lead the conversation. It was quite and emotional couple of weeks. Some had lost close relatives, friends, involved in recover efforts, had seen the towers collapsed. Everyone had a strong emotion around it and willing to engage in the conversation. But there were differences between groups. Some people were tying to shout their positions down the throats of other people. We call them the tall towers people. Bu t there were other people who were victims family who said the memorial was most important. There were complaints that they were getting more than their representative voice. It wasn’t
fair that their emotions were going to sway how things would developed.
Mostly people were concerned about the trust that their input would be part of the decision. They hoped to have some effect on the decision makers. As it turned out it really did. The F2f conversation was widely reported as expressing strong disapproval to the initial plans. Based on that the publicity of getting this strong disapproval and sent everyone back to the drawing board. The online conversations contributed that yes it was important that the towers be tall and there be a memorial. And the chose design reflects this.
Trust, Identity, Reputation
These are concepts you see being talked about on the web. Software is being developed and put in to portal software. I was associated with a company called RealCommunities which had a flexible database where people could establish identity and a reputation management module. A lot of this stuff operates in our daily life according to where we trust people, what we know of their identity and reputation. When engaging in online conversations with people online you rely on many other factors to determine if it is worthwhile in engaging in the conversation. You are investing your time. Don’t want to feel like you’ve wasted it.
What we found on the Well when we all came together, a bunch of people who didn’t know each other with just a bunch of words on a screen connecting. Came to a point when Howard Rheingold and Howard Mandel started a conference called "True Confessions." It was basically a place where people could write stories about themselves. Up until them people learned just what they learned about each other in conversations about politics, news, sports. That was valuable especially if you engaged in conversations across topics. A person in politics might be a flaming liberal and you were conservative, but in the parenting conference both have kids and shared experiences. A multidimensional relationship, the way it is in real life, we know each other from at least two different contexts. Helps us get a sense of what these people are. IN True CONFESSIONAS once they saw a bit more about each other’s background, it opened up the community. They knew this person was what they stood for, what they’d been through, why they were what they were.
Leadership
When you start a conversational community you will find different kinds of leaders. Founders who understand the mission, where the conversation is supposed to go, who was invited and why. The Implementers who actually start the conversations, comfortable with the tools, recognize what to do with the vision provided by the founders. The Sustainers hang in there. The facilitators, the challengers who keep volatility in the conversation and attract more people to it because conversations generally want to expand.
Power Imbalances Destabilize
Make it difficult for people to trust. Today’s world situation. People don’t necessarily want to go along. They don’t want the US to say not only are we the most wealthy, but powerful, military strength, democracy – and thus our vision is the most powerful vision. But will we be kept in our place. Will other nations keep their validity. France is digging in it’s heels. Other countries are digging in their heels.
The Truth Will Out
The internet has lent this whole other side to propaganda. You can’t keep a lid on things anymore. There will be other visions represented. Blogging, even though its in principle the same internet publishing model, we’re probably being blogged as we speak -- this element was not there when Berners-Lee put up the initial web pages. Blogging is now a medium, or an application of the medium, that allows many viewpoints to come together, cross represent each other, disagree with each other. A wide conversation that when used well in communities in trust -- which does nto mean you necessarily agree, but you understand where they are coming from, but as long as you believe they are speaking from the heart, you have a level of trust that they are a known element, not a maverick, one who spoofs you.
In a conversation if the truth doesn’t out, if people don’t agree to speak truthfully, not a balance of weight in the conversation, and least everyone going in the same direction of having a productive conversation rather than shouting each other out. On the well we had "subtext" you could read a conversation and tell if there was dissatisfaction or lack of cred under the surface. People might not say it, but a vibe, of argument running below the surface. In an online discussion that happens on a company’s intranet you will find a lot of that. People are afraid to really express what they believe because their jobs at stake. If the company does not have a culture that encourage people to say what they believe, if people don’t’ feel they can say what they believe, it will still come across in refusal to participate or what you can read between the lines. People’s subconscious. Belief system at work that they did not want to express because it would create a hassle, an argument. But their subconscious will still come through in how they talked.
Weinberger: Typical in business that there is an imbalance in power. What do you do to accommodate conversations?
This is part of the problem with business culture and how it’s developed through the years. In the first couple of chapters of Building the KM Network, we run through a quick history of civilization and how we got through the industrial age, how orgs formed in a hierarchical sense built on a military model. Was not important what the lower ranks thought. Whoever was running the place held all the knowledge and wisdom, hired lower ranks with wisdom and now power. The net has broken into distributed non hierarchical model. Business has not caught up. They go through team building sessions and OD trying to enable a more open and distributed conversation, but still that power balance exists if the upper levels of management don’t participate in conversations that cut across the layers. At the Well it mattered that Steward Brand as founder of the Well participated. But he was sort of thin skinned. If anyone criticized his vision or suggestions, he didn’t stick around very long. We always wished that he would. He was initially a very vocal participant but when the hard questions started he did not feel it was necessary to answer them. That’s when the leadership model has to move on. When the founders and CEOS aren’t going to participate… now the customers are much more powered. They can talk to each other. They can talk about products through boards such as Epinions, online gatherings like on Edmonds.com about their cars, and if the company is not going to be part of this conversation, its going to suffer from not getting, taking and using that feedback. I think not being a CEO and not choosing to work within a company as an employee, throwing rocks from over the wall as a consultant, my council is that companies have to evolve. Look at Enron and all these scandals. If these conversations aren’t enabled with in the company all kinds of things can take place. If they aren’t talking about it they see how it gets out of control. Companies, careers, 401Ks ruined. It’s hard to visualize what its like working in a co with tens of thousands of employees and how you get them started. But conversations start incrementally and can spread within organizations.
Weinberger: Short of changing the ethos of the org, a big challenge, many companies would rather die than do that. Experience on the well, someone gets on where the power imbalance is wrecking the conversation, the answer to Brand is not step down from your role, but change your conversational behavior. Do you have advice or help for working within the conversation itself, short of changing the way businesses work?
Tom: All the things you talk about operate in my world of online support groups. If you put a doctor in a conversation it changes the conversation. Just breast cancer survivors the conversation is more open and wide-ranging. In these communities you do not have the flames. A built in "we’re in this together and we need to help each other." Similar response to a disaster when you work with people you had not worked with before.
What do you do about power imbalances? First acknowledge it. That there is that difference between the person who is operating from a higher rung on the ladder One of the people I worked with on the LTC forum came up with the idea of a "Full Value Contract." When a conversation is engaged, in this case online, that going into it everyone agrees that they are going to give full value to the conversation. They make an agreement going in that they are gong to listen, respect, do what they can to encourage each other to speak, not dominate the conversation, do everything they can to make the conversation as useful for ist purpose as they can. It’s a very important idea that you have an agreement, which formalizes the conversation more than they usually are. Usually more ad hoc. People set up a forum, invite people, a topic. But as far as any kind of social contract they have to evolve over time. On the Well we had "you own your own words" which was formulated to protect the well from liability but adopted as a rallying cry for personal copyright issues. Social contracts evolved by trial and error. When you go into a conversation you set up for a purpose, presenting everyone with some sort of contractually worded agreement can really help, especially where there is a power imbalance so everyone assumes an equal role, even with different levels of responsibility. If a biz is going to have an online discussion w/ CEO and higher folks, that they declare this is the way it is going to be. Not a George Bush press conf where you have to ask the right questions to get picked on.
Question: Would you advocate to people with power to use an alias to make it a more egalitarian environment?
I don’t that’s really what you are looking for. You are looking for true identity. If you use an alias that allows the person with the higher power position to act like a fly on wall, Joe Everyman and speak. It might be useful for them, but for everyone else, fi they don’t know this.
I was thinking more of a person with some dominant power enters the conversation; it tends to polarize the conversation by dint of their identity. If you wanted exchange of content, not identity, it would make it a more level playing field.
[Cliff asked Nancy what she thought. She talked about unintended consequences of anonymity and the importance of treating root issues at the root. Organizational warts just appear even bigger online.]
It’s (anonymity) tempting. Does it create a false sense of security? What is the organization is about? An organization that does not operating to certain ideals in the offline world, online they have to be based in reality. We are proposing to do work with a company that is promoting the idea of the democratic workplace. They have models and theories and they want to start online discussion. There are plusses and minuses to the democratic workplace.
Gonna rip through the rest of the presentation (clock ticking)
Looping
Getting into an argument …saying if we oust Sadam Hussein it’s going to reduce terrorism and the others say increase and it goes around and around. You don’t’ want to spend time doing that. We’re in a loop and shoot for common ground. Sorting, looking for the exit point to looping conversations. Diplomacy, as we’re seeing, does not work all that great when it is relegated to national PR> What are the conversations that are really happening. People being diplomatic can lead to beating around the bush. Talk about the real stuff even if it is hard. You shouldn’t have to have to use diplomacy. Spit it out and say what you mean.
Not getting Work Done
Summary
Questions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
