SXSWi: Bruce Sterling's SXSW Rant

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:18:06 GMT

Bruce Sterling’s SXSW Rant
Bruce Sterling, Visionary in Residence, Wired.com
Bruce’s blog

My thoughts before the text: A great rant. Do catch this podcast. Open, honest critique of problems with the Internet as well as celebration of potential.

Video is the stupidest medium. TV is the wasteland.

Viacom sued Google today for $1 billion. It’s old media vs. new media. We’ll see how this plays out.

I remember when people were saying the Internet would grow up and be more like TV. That is not it, broadband has beaten everything, it is just so much more.

The Internet Generation cares nothing about proprietary media. Time is not on the side of the giants.

Jokai Benkler, Henry Jenikns are some of the big thinkers right now. (I wrote on them yesterday)

Lev ManovichSoft Cinema

These three guys are coming from three angles at this and they are like the acceptable face of Richard Stallman. Stallman is radical and you can’t introduce to mass media. Benkler, Manovich and Jenkins have the diction to spread the right messages into the establishment.

I was using Google and I realized that information was free. Information wants to be free. This device was delivering a torrent of the most arcane stuff imaginable for no cost. You put Google and YouTube together and it is game over for the 80’s. It is done, there is no area of struggle.

We have the first world: the global market – build it in China, ship it to Utah
Second world: governments – local, UN, state
Third world: common space peer production
Fourth world: disorder – parts of the world where they don’t have any of this

In 10 years this might be quite a bit more obvious

Journalists worry about things like Craigslist. If Craig were a mogul people would understand that. He isn’t trying to be that. He just wanted 200 million friends. He gutted major media outlets and isn’t making any money. We have more readership than ever but no classifieds means no money.

There are downsides to this. The golden opportunity is oversold. It is a new world of laptop gypsies instead of solid professionals. Jenkins is enamored by fandom, I think a lot of fandom stuff is crap – repurposing Harry Potter characters because you don’t have the literary creativity to come up something is ridiculously.

Mashups are novelty music. They won’t be around in 10 years. To pretend like that is creative work is wrong. It is powerful, but not good. It isn’t good music.

In a contemporary Hollywood product every frame is touched by a compositor it means that everyone who can afford the machine (and it is getting cheaper) everyone will be able to create that type of product.

Yes, the broadband is growing. Things are getting faster all the time. That doesn’t mean that we are becoming better artists.

If you have a CusinArt you think everything should go through the chopper blades. Because we have new media products we think everything should be presented that way. The mere fact that it is technically possible doesn’t mean it is better.

DeviantArt is not great. Electronic Art isn’t great. It is interesting, some of it, but no great art there. DeviantArt isn’t even that deviant. It is folk culture. I am not an elitist, but folk culture is for hicks. Hicks are fine, they are there and are good.

We need to eliminate film studies, media studies and we need to come up with ways of analyzing new realities. We need real academics. To valorize them because they are shiny is the electronic hick. It is cool and I couldn’t do it before so it must be good. No.

55 million blogs, so some must be good. Well no, some must be good blogs, but we don’t even know what blogs are yet. I doubt in 10 years if anyone will even use that term. t is hard to find a blog that will make you cry or has the effect of fine art. Now embedded video, words, Flickr set, Digg this: we don’t have a vocabulary for describing this yet. Sort f magazine analysis: nice writing, good typeface, good photo, etc, but that doesn’t express it. We don’t have web analysis skills yet.

I am very suspicious of any internet item that is about turning on the information factory and leaving the room. It is not a mode of self expression, it is machine expression.

95% of the net is spam. Imagine if you turned on the TV and immediately someone tried to rob you or you go to the movie theater and they pick your pocket.

Reed Hundt (his blog),former head of FCC, has this weary look on his face. To say he is disenchanted doesn’t begin to express it. He was involved in spectrum auction. He came up with mad scheme to sell 700mHz spectrum to coalition of police, emergency service providers. He wants to take a couple channels from broadcast TV. Broadcast TV debases even the poverty-stricken people who watch it. It was bad before American Idol. Broadcast television is an archaism. You can take that spectrum and put the Internet on them. Put the Internet over TV and saturate TV areas with broadband. Should that happen, so many borders between media would erase. Phone or TV or Internet would all just use what was there. Look at his website. It is paralyzingly dull, but it is important. Go give him some Neem social networking crap, I don’t care. Give us some damn broadband. Pry it out of the hands of the aging, useless broadcasters.

Benkler – how do you build the third type of thing with collective intelligence. You don’t just open a website to comments. You have to engineer it with thought and care. Socially-motivated, commons-based peer production, here’s how:

First, divvy up the work (you’re not paying and you can’t draft). It has to be granular, modular and integrateable. Even if I do it for 5 minutes I will do it good. 5 minutes or 500 minutes both move it positive direction (granular). Modular – has to be broken up into small pieces. Integrateable – has to have broad social impact, has to be useful.

Self-selected: people are choosing to join you. You have to have a selection process. Then you need an in or out mechanism. In or out membrane of participation.

Communication: need to have platform to talk but not kill each other

Humanization: I don’t believe in this so not covering it

Trust construction: teach people how to trust each other

Norm creation: assembling all these people, they are trying to figure out how to fit in. People have to be acculturated into the space. What’s normal behavior here?

Transparency: how do you stay transparent. When it is small it is obvious. When it is hundreds of thousands of people it becomes an organizational problem.

Monitoring: you actually need a police force (Benkler doesn’t say this). Someone has to watch it all the time. Then who monitors the monitor. State has this problem, common space has this problem. A human difficulty.

Peer review: the people in the group need to know who is good at it.

Discipline: when it is not coming down from powers on high, this is a tough one.

Fairness: Marxist analysts are upset about web 2.0. radically upset about MySpace. A giant machine for teaching false consciousness, teeneagers are roped in and forced to work for nothing and forward Rupert Murdoch’s right wing war against the world.

I don’t think this is a blip. Former professional are being erased by things on the net. Nice, put-your-kids-through-college jobs are melting.

Institutional sustainability: I don’t know how long things like Slashdot can exist. Digg, Redditt and others are eating their lunch. They threw it out there like chum and saw what happened. There was no future plan, no board of directors. I don’t know what sustainability looks like here, and I don’t think anyone else does either.

Al Qaeda is the #1 socially-motivated, commons-based peer production has solved almost all of this. Sustainability? You can’t kill them, more just come up in their place. They are existence proof of this form of organization. KKK, 4th generation warfare groups are good examples.

Benkler: in order to make this work we need to understand the computers are platforms for self-expression rather than well-behaved appliances. Computers stink as appliances: they are hard to use, they change a lot, painful to use, steep learning curve, highly innovative. When you see an appliance it probably kills commons-based peer production. When something barely works (like Ubuntu) it is probably a place for self-expression and peer production.

Benkler put his PDF all over the web, don’t have to pay for it. Then he opened a wiki to explore all the legal, ethical, etc implications. There is nobody there. It is easy to open a wiki and easy to post, but it is not easy to be as smart as Yokai Benkler. He feels like there must be thousands of people to advance his brilliant forward thinking concepts and there just isn’t. Go into any left wing blog and see thousands of people agreeing and saying stuff. There may be two or three people in this room that might be able to help this guy. I can’t engage in a conversation that might help this guy – he is out of my league. If you are in his league you ought to go help him.

Eastern European poet: Cheslav Milosh, Polish communist dissident who got chased out of Poland. He really paid some dues. He wrote it in Berkely because Californians offered him shelter, then became a prof, married a California. A poem about serenity and a sense of fulfillment.
“Gift” – I didn’t transcribe the poem, and I can’t find it online, but in my humble opinion, it wasn’t that central to his talk. Catch it on the podcast. Oh yeah, and I couldn’t find it on Google.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

3 comments | no trackbacks

SXSWi: Five Tips to Make Your Lame Podcast Listenable

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:51:49 GMT

Five Tips to Make Your Lame Podcast Listenable
Steve Mack, Principal, LUX Media
Jose Castillo, thinkjose

Mack: book out on streaming media, book out on webcasting, been doing this for a long time. most podcasts are lame, but they don’t have to be

Castillo: owned commercial recording studio, been in the audio business. Into the social “stuff” and new media.

5 tips + 1 bonus tip on how not to suck

Tip 1: Know your audience
Home Brewing Podcast – targeted at home brewers.

Make sure you spend time on the tools for how listeners can interact with you – comments, wikis, e-mail, Twitter
Example: Ze Frank puts user-submitted video into his posts, encourages interaction

Let people leave voice messages and include them, then those people tell all their friends, it spreads.

Tip 2: good equipment is cool
$99 – no reason why you can’t produce broadcast quality audio. Dynamic mics and condenser mics. Condenser has bigger capsule, used in professional radio shows.

You can destroy dynamic mic and it won’t stop working, but when it is loud, you can push it into your face to only get you. You have to have dynamic mic for loud spaces – less sensitive to handling noise and you have to be close.

Condenser mic pics up everything in the room but has to be on spring-loaded holder. Picks up every single thing in the room.

Showing different audio qualities from different mics, very helpful to hear the differences. Showing plug in mic for iPods or M-Audio devices. Ok quality from these.

Interviewing someone? Show them how to hold it or better yet, use a lavalier mic.

The Shure SM7 is the broadcast standard microphone – Broadcast Supply sells them for $400

buy a good mic pre (pre-amplify)
- Built in soundcards will give you noise, they are not built for recording
- if you do the amplification inside the laptop you will lose quality
- a mic pre fits in your laptop bag, costs you $100.
- FocusRite for more money is even higher quality
- some mixers have pre’s built in

firewire and USB rock
- if you buy a microphone with USB it sends the bits directly into a microphone
- for more than one mic it becomes a problem without a mixing desk

3. stop the pop

- get a popper stopper (foam that goes over the mic)
- mic coming from above rather than below gives less popTip 3: be prepared
- panty house and a coat hanger makes a fine pop stopper

- some of you will need a script
- you don’t have to be an expert but it helps
- practice practice practice
- do your homework
- don’t be Chris Farley: ask leading questions, don’t not ask questions
- ask the question then get out of the way and shut up. Lob up a softball and let them hit it out of the park
- passion is key

4. um, like…edit
- be kind to your guests, make them seem like geniuses
- edit for flow
- tell the story (beginning, middle, end)
- lean & mean
- always leave them wanting more

Tip 5: do like the pros do
- the casting in podcasting has been around for 100 years
- theme songs rock (start and end)
- don’t steal music
- podsafe music
- go to MySpace and find a band, I will announce it on my podcast
- intro/outro – who you are, tell them what it is about, may be the first time they have heard it
- pre-announce, “coming up…” but then start where you are and get to that
- wrap it up – thank them for coming, announce next week,
- compression (audio)
- Mack doesn’t like the Levelator

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

3 comments | no trackbacks

SXSWi: Instructional Online Video

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:41:35 GMT

Instructional Online Video – The Next Big Thing
Jan Kabili PhotoshopOnline.TV
Alex Lindsay Founder, Pixel Corps

Kabili: creator, producer of Photoshop Online video podcast; also a trainer, writers. Offer free video podcasts on my blog

Linday: worked at Lucas film doing visual effects, done blue-screen training. Founder of a guild for media creators called Pixel Corps. We create about an hour of instructional video a week.

Kabili: I hate saying instructional video, sounds boring, sounds like something you have to do in school. (my comment: hey!)

Showing a mashup of instructional video on software training including clips from National Association of Photoshop Professionals (I can’t believe there is such a thing!)

Kabili: this is not limited to software training. This is a huge area. Expert Village shows educational videos or how-to videos. Learn how to skateboard, horseback ride, cook, play an instrument, build a home recording studio, quilt, work out and more. Make site shows you how to make other kids of things with online video.

Methods to create videos:
- get a video camera and film yourself
- you can use video camera for the screen too, but have to be careful
- videotaped me showing a photographer Photoshop online
- screen capture software

How to present:
- you can make a video podcast
- RSS feed so it comes to them
- gain subscribers
- add to iTunes
- post to website
- brightcove hosts video, has ad-sharing
- blip.tv
- Revver
- Lynda video training library – buys your video and givea you royalties. They handle the editing, etc.

Lindsay: PixelCopr does inside training by video and external work. You can watch Macbreak, Media Tech and Inside the Black Box on iTunes podcast

If the content is compelling enough the high-end video stuff is not that important. Our most popular shows are some of our most technically simple.

On Networks (launching tomorrow) will pay up front for broadcast quality, 3-8 minute instructional videos

People will watch less than 10 minute videos, but will listen to 1-2 hour audio podcasts

Using Apple Motion to add graphics to video podcasts

With Quicktime video you can embed links inside the video – link to a webpage, automatically link to a webpage or link to another movie. LiveStage Pro is the program we use, but it is awful, but lets you do it.

Your competitive advantage to TV is the interactivity. You can go for a niche market.

Key Points:
- short segment
- be clear
- be entertaining

Right now anyone can put something out and be watched because there is not a lot out there right now. That will change soon.

OnNetworks, Pondango, iTunes/AppleTV, Sony (PS3), Microsoft (XBox), Zudeo, Joost, ATT, Comcast, Verizon are all in this.

Every magazine topic is 5 potential shows, there is lot of room to build programming.

Video stacks tracking: Libsyn – they give us stats that are pretty good

People are looking to pay $1500-2500/show. We won’t do shows if we can’t do 10 at a time. It is all about efficiency of scale right now.

My thoughts: this session was all about commercial uses for instructional video. No focus on the actual instruction. Oh well, I am planning to use it more. I know Alex creates a lot of screencasts at his school and Atomic Learning is an amazingly affordable resource to provide to teachers, students and families in your school – it trains you how to use just about any software out there.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

no comments | no trackbacks

SXSWi: Will Wright Keynote Speech

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:16:39 GMT

Will Wright Keynote Speech

14:00 CST, 3-13-2007

Will Wright, creator of the SimCity and The Sims is getting ready to release new game called Spore that is a simulation of the universe.

Article by Will Wright in Wired on how games are unleashing the human imagination

Introduction by Justin Hall who I covered yesterday in the Beyond Play panel

Will runs the Stupid Fun Club in East Bay California. There was a video of a fallen robot saying, “help me, help me up” and the taped people’s responses to this homeless, helpless robot.

He has made it possible to experiment with the systems around us. Take The Sims and see what happens when you take out all the doors and toilets.

Will has a broken arm (skiing) and he said he had too much coffee. Ok, I better warm up my fingers.

He will be talking about storytelling and then about Spore.

Story has been the model, movies have been the example for games. I look at the world as a simulation. Certain things in the world influence other things. Everyone sees the same version of Star Wars, but everyone experiences games differently as it is an interactive experience. Every time we take away control from the player we mess up the game. It is like going to a movie and showing a blank screen.

Films are rich emotional experiences where games appeal to reptilian brain. Not that they don’t have depth. Never felt pride in a film. One time beat up characters in a game and I felt guilt, never feel guilt in a movie.

In games it is about agency, I am causing. In a movie I ask, what is going to happen next; in a game I ask, what am I going to do next?

games: agency building model
movies: empathy building model

A lot of movies start out with characters, but you don’t know what happens until you start watching the movie. Once Star Wars starts, the story keeps narrowing to less possibilities.

In linear storytelling the director knows the future. He knows what seemingly minor details are important to the outcome.

In interactive storytelling, very minor initial conditions can create dramatically different outcomes.

Linear drama has a storyboard, interactive drama cannot.

Memento, Timecode, Groundhog Day – examples of using time and storytelling in different ways. Timecode ran 4 stories in parallel and they sometimes interact. In Memento you thought you knew the story, but you had to keep going back and recreating your understanding. In Groundhog Day you know the past so you can keep telling new stories without retelling the old stories – very much like a video game when you “restart.”

“Maneki Neko” – Bruce Sterling, one of Will Wright’s favorite short stories about a karmic computer.

Ok, Will Wright is too smart and too eloquent to write down. Plus he talks to fast. This will have to be the first panel I attend that I don’t really cover with the live blog posting But you MUST watch this video podcast when its released. He understands games like no one I have ever heard, and his ideas are just fantastic and so imaginative.

The Truman Show and Groundhog Day are the two most relevant films to games

He is talking about giving players simple controls with concepts that the computer outputs as really high resolution characters or worlds that can be used in the video game. Can we basically extract an entire world from their imagination? The process of the gameplay is creating assets that work in the game. We want them to make their own experience more interesting and a basically.

Showing a demo of Spore right now when you start out as a single-celled organism in water eating and growing. Showing how you evolve into 3-D creature on land after 5-6 orders of magnitude of evolution.

5 minutes later…

Oh my, he showed how to create an entirely professional-looking character with pro-level textures, features and more. Will post some photos later when I get a chance on my Flickr site. Unreal.

I went to a school at a Montessori school and pretty much the rest of my education after that was all downhill

I think of my games as a Montesorri game, it is a philosophy tool. Playing Spore might make you think about life and how we got here. You don’t learn by someone lecturing you about it.

For everything you see in the game (characters, planets, ships) we have 3-D editors to customize. You can also see what other players have designed and choose those. We can change climates.

One of the biggest problems we have as humans is we can’t do long-term thinking. What will the world look like 100 years from now. We can have small 5-minute experiences in a game that gets us thinking forward in that way.

I don’t play video games, but this is the most convincing demonstration I have ever seen. I will have to buy this game when it comes out. Unreal concepts here.

One important point in the game was to explain how large the universe it. When you are in a planetary system how does that compare to the size of a Supernova? You can see this easily in the game environment.

He got excited applause at the end of the demo. He just sold the room.

Every now and then the world goes through a paradigm shift – hippie movement, Apple, 9/11 and we have political, social and environmental issues we are going to deal with.

his recommended book read: The SIngularity is Near – Ray Kurzweil

Hopefully games can evolve to give us ways to make better decisision in the future by experimenting in the games.

My thoughts: Stellar presentation. Also a fantastic example of how to use PowerPoint well – almost all slides were images explaining the concepts he was talking about, and some were funny and all were easy to follow. Almost no bulleted lists! (my PowerPoint ranting here)

Some quotes from around the room:

“There is nothing left, my brain is full”

“I can’t buy that game. I will disappear”

“I will buy a Windows computer just to play that game”

“That was like watching a drug dealer do a commercial”

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

no comments | no trackbacks

SXSWi: Preserving our Digital Legacy and the Individual Collector

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:34:24 GMT

Preserving our Digital Legacy and the Individual Collector
Moderator: Carrie Bickner Web Developer, The New York Public Library
Carrie Bickner Web Developer, The New York Public Library
Josh Greenberg Assoc Dir Research Projects, Center for History & New Media
William Stingone Curator of Manuscripts, The New York Public Library
Megan Winget Professor, UT at Austin

Bickner: (moderator) opening with story of Zora Neale Hurston that when she passed away she had left no instructions for her possessions – the custom in that town was that they started to burn her possessions. Someone came up and realize (Deputy Sherrif Duval) and started pulling things off the fire. Those burned letters and manuscripts sat on his porch for two years before making it to a library. This works with paper, this doesn’t yet work with digital records.

Q from moderator: people are scanning their family albums and putting them on CD to archive. What is the problem?

Winget: digital records are ephemeral, they start decaying immediately upon creation. “The Viewing Problem” – you need technology to read digital documents. Refreshing – documents on 5.25” then transfer to 3.5” to flash to network access. Migration – related to software. Difficult to open documents prior to 2 iterations from the current software. Open a document created in WordPerfect and migrate it to Word 5, to 97, to 2000 to XP, etc. When you have one doc it is ok, but when you have 10,000 you have to write a program that opens each one. Inelegant solution. It also changes little tiny pieces like fonts, tabs, etc. This could make a little or a large problem. Emulation – building software that will emulate older version of the software. Problem with emulation is you are running OS X on OS 30. You are running this software on a super-fast box, it is now different than it was. For art, or for programs with interaction, these changes change what the applications or artwork was. This is a problem. If you are not using an open source product for emulation, you can’t mess with what you need to mess with.

Software is offensive from a free/rights perspective but also from a usability perspective.

Q from moderator: You recently worked with Sep 11th fund. Can you speak about that?

Stingone: Sep 11th fund raise 100 million in 3 days. They wanted to give grants to people somehow affected by 9/11. They approached us to take their records. We document things for historians to study later on. It was our first potential donor that had entirely digital records. They had large databases shared over different spaces, they had legal contracts, they have network with very informal folder systems. Their office manager handed me a CD with 500mb of files on them. He reorganized files for me – first violation of archiving, leave in original order. It was relatively small collection, we could open most things, but there were about 50 different formats in those 500 mb

We have 5.25” floppies sitting in file folders. We may need to revisit that before it is too late if it isn’t already. I am worried about readability. How will we look at these records in the future?

Greenberg: it may seem that new media art is more esoteric than text, images, etc. The web is its own problem, rendering of HTML pages is already problematic, in the future it will be migration, emulation, etc. We’re not going to have an archive of a Google maps mashup – it is not just saving the HTML. How do you archive the server and the information it was giving then? It starts to look a lot more like the new media performance art problem than the Word document problem. There are big systems that can store bits for a long time, but what is the lightweight system for storing personal digital information. We are working on an open source library solution, and we need to get it out fast, maybe missing some library standards.

Q from moderator: what is it that we need to save and how do we go about doing that? We have a declaration of independence with Thomas Jefferson’s scribbling notes all over it. In many ways that is more important than the final as it showed what it might have been. So we often keep the final version of things rather than the process which might be more interesting. The e-mails, the fights, the discussions. What should we save?

Stingone: I try to avoid record collectors, but go for the records creators. I want the record that people created unconsciously while they were doing what they did. People think we don’t want their letters, but that is exactly what I want. I want people to keep records rather than collect them. People keep more records now because they don’t take up space in your house and you don’t have to file them. The problem is they easily go away if you neglect them or get a new computer, etc. One problem is we need to get to people much earlier so that they haven’t gone through 7 laptops before we realize they are an important person.

Greenberg: we need tools that keep track. Versioning in wikis seems very powerful for more apps. It creates historical traces as the wiki page is built. There isn’t a notion yet that once a project is completed you leave the process stuff somewhere in long-term, climate-controlled rooms.

Q from moderator: there is often real ignorance in value of saving work

Winget: the idea of preserving digital documents is changing. In the past to the file, then the box, then the closet, then the warehouse. Now it is much more dependent on individuals to make decisions along the way – file it, digitize it, etc.

Talked to a scientist about his lab notebooks. He had enormous negative findings that he wanted to ensure were in the archives. Then people could move on from where he left out. Then I wanted to archive his lab notebooks and he said all the lab notebooks were totally useless. This is what archivists want. He is in charge of that but does not see any value to it. It is all digital now, he would have to download it, put it on CD’s, store it, etc. In industry lab notebooks are a key piece of intellectual property – there are serious methods with how you collect, store. They prove prior discovery, etc. They are important. People think they are mundane, but that is not true.

Stingone: people want to give us their records and come in and explain them to us. They want us to store their story, but the records are the story. People want to organize things before they give to us. People should just keep them how they are, their natural state.

Q from moderator: how do we deal with privacy? If you archive e-mail, people don’t want all their e-mail read.

Greenberg: The Library of Congress has been interested in problem of saving digital information. Mostly library and information scientists building the infrastructures. There is a historian (University of Maryland) studying technological failures: thinking about what happening to Internet bust companies. He saw that a law firm had gone out of business. He went to bankruptcy trustee office and said let me help you preserve the digital record so that it doesn’t die. It could reflect so much about what happened in those moments. They are legal records, they are private. You don’t know what will happen in 150 years from now; perhaps the law will be different. If later on you can look at them, but don’t have them, the point is moot. It ends up in a “dark archive” – an archive you can’t look at. Census records are in a closed room that you can look at, but there are rules about what you can take out. Technical (room) and legal guidelines.

Q from moderator: What does the future of research look like? What will survive, what will be looking at?

Greenberg: large databases have made larger research analysis possible across multiple locations. We have been building algorithmic approaches to research. Researchers will expect an API that lets them pull in raw materials and then “work” with it to find what they are looking for.

Q from moderator: I want to look at National Endowment for the Humanities – I get archive of e-mail. I am pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson’s letter is his letter, but we will have to have faith in the custodians of the e-mails over the last 50 years not to have changed anything.

Stingone: we have always had this problem. I have to trust my historian colleagues of the past who say this is a diary of so and so.

My thoughts: another good panel. It is overwhelming just thinking about the amount of files we have in our school across laptops, USB drives, CD’s, DVD, file cabinets, network drives. How can we possible keep an archive? We have a new Director of Archives at our school and she is battling the paper records my school has from the 1920’s along with objects, clothes, awards, records and more. How will this intersect?

My big question though is about things like photos. I have photos of my grandparents from 50 years ago. Will my Flickr photos be around in 50 years? I want them to be, but I only have a couple photos of my grandparents, does someone need my 10,000 photos? Anyway, good guidelines from Digital Preservation (Library of Congress) and Managing the Digital University Desktop on how to store your own digital files. Follow their advice!


technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

no comments | no trackbacks

SXSWi: Open Knowledge vs. Controlled Knowledge

Posted by arvind s grover Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:21:11 GMT

Open Knowledge vs. Controlled Knowledge
3-13-07, 10:00 CST
Francesca Rodriquez Creative Commons (moderator)
Robert Capps Sr Editor,Wired
Brett Gaylor Filmmaker, Open Source Cinema
Hemai Parthasarathy Managing Editor, Public Library of Science
Gil Penchina CEO, Wikia

Capps: New issue of Wired Magazine will be clear – it is all about radical transparency in business – through blogging and other means let people see inside of what you are doing
- to eat our own dog food we posted everything we planned to do online through blogs and people commented and we used that information
- we asked could we really be this transparent and be successful?
- is there something about our craft that we want to keep closed to release a final story to our readers

Parthasarathy: PLS (Public Library of Science) Biology – the majority of science research is funded for the public or in the name of the public but then we charge scientists and the people to see the science. We believe it should be free and openly published. These efforts failed, then we became a publisher – all our articles are published under Creative Commons (commercial and non-commercial) licenses. We reject over 90% of papers submitted

Newest journal PLoS1 publishes all journals worthy of publishing – if it is technically valid we will publish regardless of the potential impact. They are published, then ranked an annotated. We believe that most important papers will filter upwards.

Penchina: CEO of Wikia. Our goal is to make all information freely accessible in every language. The licensing is open. We recently launched more news or mag like sites. Today we launched tunes.wikia.com in honor of SXSW music.

Capps: Could we license everything with Creative Commons? That certainly would be open. I can’t imagine how much tradition you would have to buck with Conde Nast and the writers.

Parthasarathy: there is a lot of waste in current science. Authors are often submitting to multiple journals. Start with the best, journal A, then keeping going until you get accepted. Gets changed as it is resubmitted. A year can go by, multiple comment rounds, multiple expert reviews, a waste of time. In open access models, you can allow communities to decide importance of a particular paper. We don’t just put up stuff, we do publish. The extreme would be putting up your lab notebook every day. All papers receive anonymous peer review, “were trials conducted correctly,” “were the stats compiled properly,” etc. We hope that that type of input enhances the scientific paper effectiveness.

Penchina: the “open” world means can other people come in and participate vs “free culture” means not only is it open to use but open to reuse (Creative Commons). On our site you can actually see who wrote every word, who edited it, who fact-checked it, etc. We are truly open, you can go and edit our homepage. We believe people are generally good. We don’t think you will come in a spray paint our wall just because we left a can of spray paint around. If you get a lot of people together good things generally happen.

Gaylor: a lot of people still getting sued. Companies are looking at free culture and saying how can we monetize this? This culture may be co-opted. Do people have more freedom to interact with the media now?

Penchina: when open source first came along no one believed you could make money giving stuff away. The model has shown that it does work from Digg to web software.

Gaylor: people are tired of consuming, they want more, they want to create it. At open source cinema we are saying that you can’t just watch, you have to put in input. It is our medium, we need to deconstruct the issue of copyright together.

Q from moderator: Can you tell us a time when openness has affected your business?

Capps: I don’t think it has happened yet. We went transparent and posted a bunch of stuff online, got feedback etc. When we are printing it make take 3 months to get it out. When our competition is not transparent, this can be an issue. Chris Anderson, our Editor in Chief posted on his blog that we were thinking of going transparent and another Editor posted on his blog said, “sure Chris, tell us everything you are going to write about 6 months before you do. The other side my scoop us on things. But possibly others will see what we are doing and they will be too late, wont have time to do the article and will let us take it. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

Q from moderator: does the community express fear about corporations profiting from their work?

Penchina: you can have free content and still be profitable. You can also choose licenses that don’t let corporations use your work. People who write at Wikia want respect and want to help people, so they generally want to share their experiences. People are very passionate about certain topics, they will talk your ear off if they could; these passions can have a space online. It is a very emotional thing, people get involved, make friends, have pen pals. The web isn’t always about keeping people away from friends, but another way to interact.

Parthasarathy: scientists are incredibly busy people and generally want to be rewarded for their work. What incentive do they have for commenting on others’ work and helping them? They want to write the definitive paper not help someone else do it. For us the big question is how to we incentivize this?

Gaylor: I had to change my concept of what a documentary. It isn’t just my vision, I have to take many peoples’ inputs. How does Wired perceive these new articles? Who’s work is it? The writer? The group?

Capps: So far it has just been an experiment, the article was an experiment. I still think magazine writing is a craft. You start with crap first, it’s wrong, poorly written, not well thought out and the writer side doesn’t want people to see it. Part of my process is stewing in my bad work until I figure it out and am ready to share it. It interrupts my process being so open before I am “done.”

Gaylor: I have announced my view beforehand, I am open. So I can’t “skewer” someone like Michael Moore does, they already know where I am coming from. But this is a positive thing as well. This is an experiment in democracy. It is hard to post it when in rough cut form, but it is worth it.

Penchina: it is an evolution. Wired comes from one side, we from another, we don’t know where the equilibrium will end up. We hope that more people will be able to publish and find income, satisfaction and more without having to use copyright. Judged a public-interest assignment at Stanford and almost every group had a video, using Facebook, collaborating – the new generation has a set of tools that we just never had.

Q on challenges:

Parthasarathy: creating a community where scientists want to share. We have to determine their rewards.

Capps: if we can succeed, we will be more open. How can we use wikis to our advantage? Our experiments with wikis so far have been poor, have been just vandalized. What are we doing wrong?

Penchina: part of the answer is if you have a community and give them the power to fix stuff, they correct problems quickly. If something has been controlled forever and suddenly you are letting people in, there is a tendency to tweak the person who was running. Kind of being principal for a day, you change all the rules. How do you turn your readers into writers instead of spellcheckers? If you let people make the top 10 instead of telling them to comment on your top 10 I think that seems more healthy place to go/be.

Capps: we just ended up with overwhelming amount of vandalism. Do you really not have that?

Penchina: we have 7 full-time people who help to create the cultulre. But we have thousands of people who volunteer. You have to feel like it is yours, not someone else’s.

Q from audience: League of Technical Voters is working on a “consensus wiki.” We have been working on reputation. We are working on social networking aspects of wikis. Do you have input?

Capps: our system does not have reputation or a way of tracking comments on website. I can see that that is one of the things holding us back. Suddenly becoming open is so much work. it takes full-time people working on these issues, the wikis. We are probably foolish to think we can just throw the doors open.

My thoughts: really cool session, the CEO of Wikia just gets it. I guess that is a good thing since they are the people to watch right now in terms of open publishing, now to mention they host the near-and-dear-to-me School Computing Wiki. I even asked Gil Penchina (Wikia CEO) for help with how to organize it. Demetri, I will talk to you about his ideas. Wired on the other hand needs some help on understanding what openness is. The seem well intentioned but not-so-well informed. I guess I need to write another post on that. Too many blog posts to write!

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

no comments | 1 trackback

Older posts: 1 2 3 4