Comments

Someone recently shared a link to a blog, pointing out the comments section introduction:

"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous."

I thought this was brilliant. I am not someone who comments often on articles or blogs, but I sometimes glance through the comments when I finish reading. I primarily browse through the online versions of BBC News and the Seattle Times, for world and local news, respectively. The Seattle Times commentators certainly fit the above statement a little too closely for my liking. It frequently seems to be a free-for-all to see who can come up with the most idiotic or unsubstantiated content, belittling others and generally presenting themselves poorly. People seem to sometimes react to the feeling anonymity in the digital realm by behaving in very different manners than they would in-person.

Photo by Stian Eikeland

In my information ethics course, we discussed the pros and cons of anonymity from both an ethical and policy perspective. It isn't a clear-cut, black and white issue, but it is an important area to consider as new technologies and information behavior continue to emerge and evolve. There are cases where anonymity can facilitate more honest feedback, particularly when there are power disparities that hinder people from feeling completely able to voice opinions otherwise. Employee engagement/feedback surveys are a good example of this.

But for something like social media or other by-choice dialogue, I wonder if anonymity is the best choice. I understand the comments on cute kitten pictures at icanhazcheeseburger.com don't often take a serious tone, and I wouldn't argue that a site like that requires full name disclosure. But on a newspaper site like the Seattle Times? I think that it is a little too convenient for people to say outrageous things on an issue, throw out all sorts of data that they do not back up, and do it all rudely.

In terms of social media, I was really disappointed with the newest development by Google on their most recent foray into social media, Google+. Google initially instated a policy that required users to use their real names when signing up for Google+. I seemed to have missed most of the commentary and "controversy" over that, but Mashable recently reported that Google would be relaxing that policy to support pseudonyms and nicknames. Seems like that move will dilute the community-concept (including knowing who your neighbors/'friends' are) that Google was going for. Ah well. Maybe I'll go post an anonymous comment about my concerns.

Partners in Emergency Preparedness Conference 2011

Attending the Partners in Emergency Preparedness Conference was a new experience for me. I have attended a number of conferences in the last few years as a student, but this was the first conference where I felt I might actually be attending as a future practitioner. The opening keynote addresses both approached some of the high-level issues associated with emergency and disaster management. The booths of vendors were quite interesting to peruse - the products and services available ranged from communication systems to emergency rations. The first session I attended was on building resilience community partnerships - how to form connections between businesses, government, and citizens.

And this opportunity was also very special because I was given the opportunity to take part in Annie Searle's presentation "Tweet Me Up: Social Media Tool and Crisis Management". Annie presented some of the emerging trends and risks associated with the increasing prevalence of social media use in both normal and crisis business environments. Speaking to about 150 people, the session covered a number of benefits as well as the challenges of social media that appear in the crisis management framework.

After recommending organizations (including government, business, and NGOs) find ways to better adapt to the new reality of social media, Annie passed the microphone to me. A bit nervous to be lecturing to a room full of experienced professionals, I tried to clearly present some of the social media tools available, and how they can work and be managed. It is always an educational experience to try and present a topic one is very familiar with to an audience you must assume knows little to nothing about.

Social media isn't going away. One of the questions from the audience was, in short, about what if Facebook (or the like) isn't around in 5 years? Should people (organizations) jump on board and go through all the headaches that are being seen with trying to integrate social media into more and more business environments? And my first thought was it doesn't matter if Facebook isn't around in 5 years. It is simply one "tool". The methods and mentalities are changing in society, just like what happened with email. And someone else in the audience pointed out just that - the conversations businesses and organizations are having today about social media are very similar to those that were taking place 15 years ago over email. An interesting thought to mull over.

Women, Cyberspace, and Information

CC License Use (http://flic.kr/p/4TAdv6)

Well, the 2011 winter quarter, and all its insanity, is officially over and done. What a whirlwind it has been, both in my life and the world.

So I had an interesting article sent to me the other day by a friend. One of the Financial Times (UK) blogs posted on "Inequality in Cyberspace", about the numbers showing that there seems to b. The author, Liz Bolshaw, mentions Noam Cohen's NYT piece left off talking about how only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women, and Joseph Reagle's justification that women are “less willing to assert their opinions in public”.

HAHA. That's an interesting thought. Haven't gotten that impression from most of the women I've met.

My first though about the whole gender gap isn't concern, it's "women have better things to do than edit Wikipedia". Not sure how true that is, but it seems to me that the people who are the most qualified to do something don't have the time to do what they need to do. Not that women are more qualified by any means, but they're certainly not less qualified. I'm not convinced that women are less well-represented as an internet population, but really? Is it something we should be concerned about - that women are not contributors to Wikipedia? My association with Wikipedia-editors is drunk frat boys mucking around with various entries. Is that something women should be aspiring to? The power of outsourcing knowledge creation to the cyber community (Wikipedia is only one such example) is certainly a force to be considered, and the power of it comes from the diversity of the people who are contributing. I would be more concerned with those who are excluded from contributing (directly or indirectly), not those who chose not to participate.

An interesting side note - women are actually really well represented in my program. Less so in the undergrad version, but there is still a good number, or at least it seems that way to me. It has been quite an experience the past two years as I've studied in a hybrid field that mixes strong gender stereotypes. The program is based out of the field of Library Science, but it has been heavily influenced by Information Technology and Business. I have the feeling that there are less gender stereotypes because of this hybridization, but I have yet to really immerse myself into the working field. All I know, there are some kick-ass women out there who are managing information and sharing what they know with the world (see some Seattle folks like Karine Nahon, Vanessa Fox, Samantha Starmer, and Alix Han). Maybe we aren't writing in Wikipedia, but women are certainly invested in cyberspace and information.

The Knowledge Economy - Don't Kill the Education Budget

An article on the BBC News website yesterday was titled "Graduates - the new measure of power". The main take was from an education perspective, looking at the shift from raw resources as sources of power within nations to knowledge and intellectual resources. This is not a new topic - scholars have been exploring the shift to the "knowledge economy", but perhaps I've been abnormally exposed to the school of thought since I'm getting a degree in information. Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that measuring the "power" of a nation must calculate the innovation, information, and knowledge that is being generated within its borders and its citizens. This article emphasized the role that formal educational institutions play in this generation of value, and how all across the globe governments are heavily investing in their future through students and schools.

Maybe the numerous states in the US, such as Washington, should consider this fact before they continue to viciously slash at the state-supported education budget for schools such as the University of Washington.  As the Governor's new budget presents a worst-case scenario of an additional 40% slash, it is important to understand what has come already (from a letter to the State legislative from Interim President Phyllis Wise).


The steepest decline in state funding for the UW came in 2009-2011, when the state and the nation entered the Great Recession.  Over a two-year period, the University of Washington lost over $132 million in state funding, roughly 30% of its state appropriation.  Even with two 14% tuition increases, over $57 million in cuts were still necessary to balance our core education budget. 


Major cuts included: 
• Eliminated 950 jobs 
• Froze enrollment for resident undergraduates 
• Closed/eliminated 12 degree programs; 14 MA programs now self-sustaining 
• Increased advisor load by 180 students per advisor 
• Closed 384 undergraduate lecture sections and 130 small group sections 
• Decreased number of lab sections by 20%, while average lab size increased 38% 
• Closed 4 writing/tutoring centers and 2 computer labs (loss of 1/3 student workstations) 
• Closed 1 library, reduced library hours, and canceled subscriptions to over 1,200 journals 
• Reduced hundreds of hours of student counseling services (advising, financial aid, health)  


As I'm preparing to graduate in June from a program that is not state-supported at all, I'm still concerned as a citizen of Washington about the future of education systems if these huge cuts are continued. Economies recover, but it is likely going to take years and years for educational institutions to recover from the hemorrhaging of funds out of their budgets. It seems awfully short-sighted for any government to pull money from the one resource that is almost guaranteed to reward the economy handsomely in the future.

Creativity, Law, and Change

I recently listned to a well-articulated TEDTalk by Larry Lessig on "Laws that Choke Creativity". A really interesting and thought-provoking piece about how the changes in culture are leading to creative conflicts in the newest generations.

"We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV. It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces; we can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it; we can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again; we can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time, it's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we -- are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy we ought to be able to do better."

I thought this was one of the best summaries of one of the biggest social difficulties of the times - the shifting notions of right and wrong, and what kind of impact that has on us as a culture. I think I have some more thoughts on this, but for now I have to get back to writing a paper on the concept and ethics of a national "smartcard" ID. A fascinating topic that has led me down many tangents (such as this video) though most of the diverging hasn't been useful for the paper. Oh well. At least the tangents are interesting and educational.

Anonymity, Privacy and The Debate on National Online IDs

I think the National Internet ID conversation that has been recently taking place is quite an important and interesting piece to be discussed. I've been approaching a research piece on it from a risk-perspective, but part of that is a risk to privacy and anonymity. In an article by Helen Nissenbaum on anonymity, I thought she had a good point - that anonymity is really about being "out of reach" from consequences. Anonymity can be abused and used as a negative thing (think criminal activities) but many times it is critical for certain systems to work (as mentioned, voting and peer-review).

In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?

Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.

Changing the World With Design

Since starting my graduate degree in Information Management, I've discovered an entire new and fantastical world called "design" that has entirely changed the way I think and view the world. The principles that make up the foundation of "user-centered design" can also serve not only to design better systems and stuff, but provide a framework through which to view the world.

One of the cooler applications of design to "everyday" life is the work that is being done by Emily Pilloton in North Carolina. Co-founder of ProjectH, a nonprofit design organization, Pilloton has taken on one of the scarier systems ever formed in the US - formal education - and has begun to tackle it with design.

Thinking about how to "fix" our underfunded, outdated, bureaucracy-laden public education system is a difficult, convoluted and systemically heartbreaking effort. But Pilloton has armed herself, and works to create "Design initiatives for Humanity, Habitats, Health, and Happiness". And it's working. They are doing some really awesome things over in North Caroline.

Check out her TED talk on "Teaching Design for Change". It is one of the most inspiring TED talks I've seen in a while. Often the people who speak for TED have these wonderful insights, challenges, and ideas, but this one is particularly strong because this a snapshot into work that is creating sustainable change in behavior and attitudes. And that's just cool.

More About Emily Pilloton:

A visit with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report (1/18/2010)

Writing for Design Mind about the need for design to "Get Local", a reflection around the one-year mark of their project in Bertie, NC.

The Walking Schoolbus

A short column in the Seattle Times this morning by Nicole Brodeur made me hopeful about small changes that will hopefully have a lasting impact. The only information here is really the coordination efforts – I simply wanted to share something I thought was really nifty.

The article covered the “walking schoolbus” that goes to West Woodland Elementary school in Phinny Ridge every morning, coordinated by one man (a Mr. Glen Bradburn) and 18 families. Parents are in charge of “driving” the bus – they walk their kids to meet other parents and children, and eventually get all 22 children to school. Then they do it on the way back.

It’s a clever solution – it gets kids walking more (challenging the rising obesity levels in kids), also letting them work off some of that seemingly endless energy that makes it difficult for them to pay attention in school. It is a great opportunity for families to get to know each other in neighborhoods, helping people see beyond their own little bubble that is so comfortable to stay in. It saves on busing costs and petrol, is better for the environment, and is simply just a cool thing.

Going strong since 2005, this walking bus will hopefully continue to run and inspire other families/communities. There are apparently 18 other walking buses in the Seattle area – I hope they continue to grow.

Norman Strikes Again

You know it's going to be interesting when one of the most well known names in HCI design write a blog post called "Design Thinking: A Useful Myth".

Don Norman's post this past June is well worth the read, not only because it is well written but because it has some interesting points that might make for good discussions amoung "designers". Norman talks about the fact that the idea that designers somehow have mystical powers of intellect and perspective can be a useful myth, but that this idea of "design thinking" is simply a myth. He makes the point that it really isn't a unique characteristic to this profession. Breakthroughs simply occur "when people find fresh insights, new points of view and propagate them". Creative people are all around. But the design community, across all sectors, has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that designers somehow have the monopoly on design thinking, which is according to Norman really simply "a public relations term for good, old fashion creative thinking.

1) The myth helps fight against the confusion that "design" equals "making things pretty". Design is so much more than that, and every little piece that might change the popular mind helps.

2) It helps get designers into the door at organizations. "Hire us, they say, and we will bring the magic of design companies to you, working wonders upon your dead, stilted, unproductive company." Ultimately, Norman points out, the "design thinking" pitch is akin to claiming a secret weapon that has to power to solve big problems, and that is a valuable tool.

Norman wraps up the post with an interesting challenge to designers:

"So, long live the phrase 'design thinking.' It will help in the transformation of design from the world of form and style to that of function and structure. It will help spread the word that designers can add value to almost any problem, from healthcare to pollution, business strategy and company organization. When this transformation takes place, the term can be put away to die a natural death. Meanwhile exploit the myth. Act as if you believe it. Just don't actually do so."