Archive for category Crowdsourcing

Date: June 21st, 2010
Cate: Crowdsourcing, Journalism Theory/Analysis, Uncategorized
3 msgs

WikiLeaks: Ethics, Ideals and Questions

If: Information is power.
And: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Then: Absolute information corrupts absolutely.

What is WIkiLeaks: According to wikipedia it’s “an amorphous, international organization, originally based in Sweden,^[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources.”

The organization has made a splash recently with its collateral murder video that showed U.S. soldiers killing suspected terrorists (turned out to be journalists) from a helicopter while not following standard procedures.

Bottom line: I think WikiLeaks is important and a positive thing for freedom and democracy. As Adrian Monck said via Twitter: “Nasty but necessary.” An idealistic free speech absolutist part of me wants to cheer them on until I lose my voice. But a very practical side of me asks tons of questions. All of these questions come back to ethics.

Quick disclaimer: I am not a scholar. I am not one who speaks on behalf of the journalism world. This is my personal blog where I have a conversation with myself. It helps me sleep better. I make no claims as to the ethical state of Wikileaks – I just leave with questions. I also have no doubt in my mind that the founders of Wikileaks have the best of intentions.

Why this post?: Since Collateral Murder was released there has been an ongoing saga with WikiLeaks. Their source has been arrested. Coverage of it in Wired has been very thorough (disclaimer – I used to work at Wired) and included chat logs between Manning (the whistleblower) and Lamo (the informant). In the chat logs Manning makes reference to 260,000 government cables that he leaked to Wikileaks. The WikiLeaks organization denies they have these documents but does accuse Wired.com of ethical breaches – helping Lamo turn in Manning to get a scoop. The back-and-forth has been analyzed by Salon, CJR and others. This post is not intended to add to that back-and-foth. The fact is, I don’t know what happened. I don’t know the series of events that took place. I can’t place blame on anyone. I’m an outsider. IF Manning is a spy – I’m glad we got him. If Manning is a whistblower – I hope they fight it and win. If Wired entrapped Manning, shame on them. If not, kudos on the reporting. If monkeys fly out my butt – it will hurt. I simply don’t know or care. It is an example of particular justice. I am more interested in a general and theoretical situation. Because the situations I concoct below are theoretical – I will cast no aspersions to WikiLeaks.

The Meat of this Post: A Theoretical Ethical Conundrum

If Manning did leak 260,000 government cables to WikiLeaks – the organization finds itself in a very big ethical conundrum.

Do you sit on the government documents? Aside from going against the “information wants to be free” philosophy you essentially become a spy. You will be sitting on way too much information and hence power. (if information is power, and power corrupts….). At the same time – you can’t just “leak” those 260,000 documents for the world to see. It would be irresponsible. Even if you could 100% verify the information as true these are potentially the kinds of documents that get people killed, start wars, trash economies and more. Even the most free speech absolutist must recognize that words have consequences and releasing 260,000 documents can do a lot of damage. It’s blood you don’t want on your hands. The only medium is to sit on the majority of documents and leak the ones that you feel are most important or ethical to leak. But that still puts the power in one person’s hand.

WikiLeaks claims they don’t have the 260,0o0 documents. I hope for their sake it’s true – because I would hate to be in the position above.

This theoretical situation, however, brings up two more poignant questions about ethics and journalism. One is about WikiLeaks itself and the other is about the “profession” of journalism and tension this profession has with the process of journalism which is (and should be) open to anyone.

WikiLeaks and The State

I was talking to Jay Rosen (affectionately called “Boss Rosen”) a mentor of mine who called WikiLeaks a “wild card.” I have felt the same way but couldn’t articulate why – until Jay put it this way. Jay studies “the press” which is a legal entity defined by the state. In other words – you can’t have “the press” until a governing body gives freedom of the press to some varying degree. If they provide no freedom of the press – then communication is literally an extension of the government itself (propaganda). In the United States we have the first amendment which gave birth to “the press” broad enough that the press can literally take down the government itself (Watergate).

What makes WikiLeaks interesting is that they have no national ties. They are not accountable to any foreign government’s laws. Well, at least, that was true until recently. I have not dived into Iceland’s new media reforms but I’m sure it has direct consequences for WikiLeaks. The reform itself was spearheaded by WikiLeaks, perhaps because they recognized that without a country providing that kind of legal framework they were operating almost as information pirates. Even a pirate that steals from the rich and gives to the poor is a pirate operating outside of any legal framework. It’s interesting that Iceland had to pivot itself to become the “Cayman Islands” of information exchange in order to provide a legal infrastructure broad enough for WikiLeaks. Again, this is a new development and I’m not 100% sure what it means – but it does start to address one of the underlying issues of WikiLeaks. Just as a business working internationally needs to have a legal home in some country, so too does an organization that works in journalism.

The problem that remains, however, is the theoretical situation I described above. I don’t know if WikiLeaks has 260,000 documents. If they do, however, they are in a tight ethical spot. Iceland is now right there with them. The country of Iceland might be able to protect them legally, but jurisprudence is just one facet of ethics.

Ethics in Journalism: Journalism ethics is very interesting. I was a philosophy major (many years ago) and studied Kant, Hegel, Peter Singer, John Rawls and others. Most of the time when we talk about “ethics” we are talking about a system of beliefs that constitute ones idea of right/wrong/justice/ etc. These beliefs then guide actions.In some respects, however, when we talk about journalism ethics we are talking about it within the context of a profession. The closest thing journalism has to an ethical code of conduct is SPJ’s code of ethics which I have always greatly admired. SPJ’s code seems to be based on a Kantian ideal that if one is to do something, they have to be prepared for everyone else in the world to do it as well. But it’s important to notice the “P” in SPJ – ie: “professional.”

How much of this “code of ethics” is based on professional practices, situations, scenarios, etc? For the most part I still find SPJ’s code of ethics to be pretty inclusive and stand on their own – but I wonder how much of it translates to the realities of folks outside of newsrooms? I would like to think that all of it does – but when you look closely you’ll see even in the preamble: “Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.” Why is “professional” the cornerstone? Shouldn’t ethics, especially Kantian ethics, be universal?

Date: January 25th, 2010
Cate: Advertising/Business, Crowdsourcing, Journalism Theory/Analysis
2 msgs

Micro-Payments vs. Crowd Funding

In a recent Tweet LA Times media columnist James Rainey commented.

“Hector Tobar colmn on low property taxes for wealthy country clubs from story 1st funded by micro-payment site Spot.us http://bit.ly/5Yzz6N“

This was quickly followed by Steve Rhodes

“@LATimesrainey @spotus is crowdfunding I’d think of a micro-payment site as one where people contribute after a story is written.”

James noted the difference:

“Thanks to @tigerbeat for correcting me. Spot.us is a pioneer in crowd-funding, not micro-payments. My apologies.”

To some extent – I think it’s splitting hairs. But I have an ongoing post that tries to do just this about journalism rhetoric.

So let’s take a moment to split those hairs even more. How would we define the difference between micro-payment and crowdfudning. I don’t think when the donation comes in is the difference maker.

Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be the person who should or does define these terms for anyone other than myself. But as I put thought into it – I might as well share them. This way as I engage in conversation with people about these concepts I have something to refer them to that shows the transparency in my thought.

Although I think Steve made a good point to say Spot.Us is crowd funding, I don’t think it’s when the money comes in is the defining difference between community funding or micro payments. After all, compared to the amount of money advertisers usually throw at newspapers the $10-$20 people contribute to Spot.Us is “micro.”

As an example – look at Paige Williams recent example of reporting through small contributions. The contributions came in after the story was done. But what she did, whether we call it ‘micro-payments’ or ‘crowd funding’ is more akin to Spot.Us than the metered system proposed by the NY Times.

I’d argue the defining factor is transparency and control about where money goes. For every Spot.Us pitch and in the case of Paige Williams, ReelChanges documentaries, Kickstarter projects and more – a contributor knows where their money is going and it was their choice.

Compare this to what the Miami Herald is doing in asking for contributions (or NPR) which leaves little to no transparency or control over the money.

I believe this is the defining factor between ‘micro-payments’ and ‘crowd/community funding.’

Dictionary Definitions

Micro payments allow an individual to contribute a small amount of money towards an organization. That money is under the organizations discretion.

Crowdfunding allows an individual to contribute a small amount of money towards an organization. That money is under the individuals discretion.

I would argue that giving transparency and control to the community is a good thing. That’s the argument for Spot.Us and other community funded projects.

I’ll say it again.

NPR could start doing community funded reporting tomorrow and blow Spot.Us out of the water. The Miami Herald could as well.

Imagine this page of Spot.Us filled with NPR pitches from around the country.

Imagine a NY Times payment meter or a Miami herald tip jar where, after you pay, you get to decide what beat your money goes towards?

It isn’t hard if you try

What does the organization loose? It gains good faith, creates a small extra incentive.

Nothing too radical. Just a simple choice: “Thanks for paying to see more NY Times articles. Where would you like your payment to go towards (i. Political reporting (II. Environmental reporting, etc. There could even be an “I don’t care – spend it how you want” option, but at least it is THEIR choice, not the organizations.

That is the difference that I make be

Date: October 12th, 2009
Cate: Advertising/Business, Art and Design, Crowdsourcing, Internet/Technology/Gadgets, Journalism Practice, Web/Tech
3 msgs

Lessons in Web Development – Good, Fast and Cheap: Pick Two

Whenever people ask me about the process of building a website, here’s how I explain their choices: “There is good, fast and cheap — you get to pick two.”

Spot.Us has quietly started development again. I’ll be putting up sketches of a much needed re-design on the Spot.Us blog soon, but you can see a sneak peek at the bottom of this post, courtesy of Lauren Rabaino. Looking back at what has almost been a full year of work, this is the part of building something from the ground up that plays to one of my strengths. It comes down to project management, weighing expectations with reality, and being able to make tough choices. In this post I will share a fundamental lesson you should keep in mind before building any website from scratch. Perhaps it’s also a “life lesson” that can be applied to engaging in any large scale project.

Back reading: other thoughts of mine related to building large scale projects or start-ups:

Today’s lesson: There is Good, Fast and Cheap — You Get to Pick Two.

Perhaps this “good, fast, and cheap” philosophy goes for all things in life. First, let’s define the options.

Good: Of high quality. Something that will last and perform as expected.
Fast: Something produced quickly. Below par.
Cheap: Something produced at low cost. Below par.

When building a start-up you get to choose two. Sometimes the choice is made for you (i.e. If you are bootstrapping).

The combinations.

Good and fast: Means the project is not cheap.
Fast and cheap: Means the project is not necessarily good.
Cheap and good: Means that it was most likely not fast.

Do these rules apply 100 percent of the time? Of course not. Nothing is 100 percent. But if I were a betting man, I’d predict the following outcomes for each scenario:

1. Good and fast: If you went for good and fast it most likely means you hired top notch folks. This is a boon to any website project starting out — but it also means you need to watch your cash flow because it won’t be cheap. Unless you are rolling in cash, the cost should be a concern. Still, going this route can save you money in the long run. If you are able to get something to market before you cut off development, you’ll be able to lean on what you’ve produced and it will work reliably. In contrast, I know plenty of projects that went with option number two…

2. Fast and cheap: If it works out then you’ve won the lottery. Again, I’m not saying quality is impossible here. But I personally know projects that went the fast and cheap route and in the long run it hurt them. What they ended up bringing to market failed. Most users are not as forgiving as they are to Twitter. If your site breaks, they won’t come back. It often takes an organization twice as much money and time to build a stable website if the initial site was built fast and cheap. If you are not a tech-minded person, you might wonder why everyone doesn’t outsource or go with the cheapest labor out there (and there are cheap developers on the market). To them I offer the following analogy: you could pay an Amish wood craftsman to build an heirloom cabinet that will last generations, or you can get something from Ikea that will last two to five years and require some assembly and maintenance on your part –but will cost a tenth of the price. There is no right or wrong answer. It often depends on where you are in life. When I was in college it was Ikea all the way, baby! In either case the trade-offs are apparent. That’s the difference between options number one and number two.

3. Good and cheap: The typical scenario here is that you have a great web developer (an Amish craftsman of code) who is ready to donate some of his/her time to your project. This is great. It means you can get quality at a cheap price. But this also usually means the development comes at a pace dictated by the volunteer, not you. Set all the deadlines you want in your mind — the reality is that you’re at their mercy. Again, this isn’t a bad thing. It’s just a trade-off. The good news is that when something does finally get put out, you’ll have quality and it won;t have broken the piggy bank. If you aren’t in a rush this can even be ideal (for example, maybe it’s something you are working on as a volunteer as well).

Final Thoughts

As always, these lessons aren’t prescriptive — they’re descriptive. I don’t think there is a right/wrong option to take. But it is important to know the trade-offs that you or your project manager are making. Journalism is becoming more entrepreneurial. “Entrepreneurial” itself is a buzzword that should be defined, but it either means journalists as innovators (entrepreneur as a person who is pushing boundaries), or journalists as self-employed (entrepreneur as small business owner). In either case, this lesson, which I call “pick two,” applies.

Now, as promised, below is a sneak peak at what a rough re design of Spot.Us. (It’s very rough — see the Spot.Us blog for details).

Date: June 10th, 2009
Cate: Crowdsourcing, Journalism Practice, Social News, Web/Tech
3 msgs

Citizen Journalism Networks Stepping Up Editorial Standards

A post I did for MediaShift’s IdeaLabl blog.

I tend to avoid the “professional vs. amateur journalism” debate, saying “I have constructive criticisms for both sides.” As we’ve hit a flash point for traditional news organizations, the evolution of citizen journalism networks like NowPublic, AllVoices and others may shed light on how the media space will resolve. Perhaps the two “opposites” will meet somewhere in the middle or, as I suspect, find out that they are more alike than they ever thought.

Recent news in the space has included Orato and Ground Report making shifts to require higher editorial standards in the submissions they accept and publish.

Alfred Hermida wrote a post on Reportr.net titled “Orato turns its back on citizen journalism,” in which he notes that the site used to focus on first person narratives of events but….

Instead the focus is on “concrete and trustworthy information that is objective and under-reported.” The owner and founder of Orato, Sam Yehia, said the changes were made to “further professionalize the site, focus its newsworthy content, create and enforce a viable business model and keep pace with Web 2.0 standards.”

When I met up with longtime friend Rachel Sterne, founder of Ground Report, at the Beyond Broadcast conference she explained that her network was making a similar change. While I’m one example shy of a trend, I think these two shifts warrant
some thought.

Rachel Sterne explains the changes happening at Ground Report:

What is the shift on Ground Report?

From what I gathered, there are four main shifts in Ground Report’s editorial policy.

Content from new users goes through a longer vetting period. Ground Report is trading speed for accountability.
Content from a trusted user or source skips this vetting period — but only because the contributor has proven themselves.
Expanding the powers of volunteer editors, who can now edit anything on the site. Again, these are trusted contributors.
A part-time managing editor who is in the process of writing editorial guidelines. This is a tough line to walk because they want to preserve the uniqueness of the writers’ voice but also make sure they are up to the higher editorial standards.

The reasoning

Sterne explained the logic behind the new system: “It is something that in the commercial world has just started to enter the dialogue while it seems obvious in an academic world.” There are several reasons why the policy change makes sense to me:

Trading speed and accountability seems like a no brainer to me. Twitter has come on the scene to dominate the speed world, which means citizen journalism networks can offer an added value of accountability.
Ground Report, Now Public, All Voices and others are looking to syndicate their content to larger distributors. To do that, they must provide a sense of trustworthiness.
iReport, YouTube and other large user-generated sites have begun highlighting well produced work from dedicated contributors while making the larger mass of content they host harder to find.

Even more interesting, according to Sterne, contributions on Ground Report have dropped 50 percent in the month since the site began implementing the changes, but traffic has increased 10 percent. That seems to be a trade off that most publishers would take — giving them a more streamlined workflow and process along with higher traffic.

Some things to note

According to the Wikipedia page on Citizen Journalism:

Allvoices was also the first citizen journalism site to measure the credibility of contributed reports and their authors, providing readers with a gauge launched in March 2009 for assessing the accuracy of news accounts.

I am friends with several of the folk at AllVoices and hope to follow up with them next time we speak.

Most people don’t know, but I am the editor in chief of citizen journalism network Broowaha. We have had similar conversations with our own members and internal team. Not surprisingly, some of the most dedicated contributors have voiced a preference towards structure, guidelines and policy.

Where are we left?

I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, but I wouldn’t be surprised if more citizen journalism networks make this shift. I think it is perfectly possible for these networks to be picky about what they publish without being exclusive. This will be a fine line to walk so as not to lose their citizen journalism souls as they try and up their game.

Date: June 1st, 2009
Cate: Crowdsourcing, Digi-Dream, Journalism Theory/Analysis
6 msgs

The Postal Theory of News

I bought stamps yesterday and as I left Safeway I had an epiphany which has long since passed. The following is an attempt to recapture it.

Stamps are a funny requirement. It is not a tax – but if you want to send anything through the mail it is just as guaranteed as death that you’ll have to pay for it.

And while the fees are small, they can add up. A book of 20 stamps is close to $10 now.What is also unique about purchasing 20 stamps is that they represent credits. I can use those stamps however I want. To mail bills, postcards, or store them away as prized possessions. There is a decision made for each stamp. There is transparency in how I use them privately (it is my choice) and publicly if I use them.

In a Sunday Digi-Dream I brainstormed about how taxes could be revolutionized online.

That thought process went like this.

The government (local, state, federal) still determines how much money is needed for specific programs (roads, education, bailout)
Individuals still figure out how much money they owe in taxes every year.
The individual decides where they want their taxes paid. Which programs do they want to support?

The fun part is that the individual decides where the money should go. If they are passionate about education – they can donate all their money towards the education fund. If that fund is already filled with the money it needs, the individual must give the money towards another government need. This encourages people to file their taxes early (so you feel as though your money went towards something you believe) and might make the feeling of paying your taxes suck less.

Note: The shift in mindset. My taxes almost become a “donation.” While it wouldn’t really be a choice (taxes are guaranteed like death), it would be a choice about which government program my money goes to support. There is a sense of transparency, civic engagement and more.

Recently a bunch of newspaper execs met in a dark room to talk about micropayments.

I’m actually happy that something in the micropayment space might happen. I’d much rather a major company try it and fail then for the larger industry continue to debate about it back and forth for months. Somebody has to suck it up and try something.

But here is my advice: Add transparency and control for the user of where the money goes!!! People aren’t used to paying for the news. Charging somebody a small fee for access to an article they are going to read once is bound to disappoint somebody. Those people won’t become regular consumers.

In truth this notion of transparency and control over a donation is the real revolution of Spot.Us and why people continue to find it fascinating. Because we let the user decide and know exactly where their money is going.

It is the difference between donating to the Red Cross and donating on Kiva.org, the difference between giving to a sludge fund for educators or giving on DonorsChoose.org.

Giving to journalism isn’t new. NPR has been around for some time. But when you donate to NPR you are throwing money over a fence and hoping your money lands on good journalism. It is a donation of guilt or hope, but there is no sense of control or power on the part of the contributor.

Donating on Spot.Us is a choice that engages. It defacto brings the user into the editorial process and encourages them to be engaged throughout. They aren’t donating to a finished product – they are donating to a process that invites them in.

NPR could try something like Spot.Us tomorrow and blow me out of the water. So could any of these newspaper companies that are thinking about micropayments.

DigiDaveJournalism is a Process, Not a Product