Looks like an interesting gathering ...

Every year at Personal Democracy Forum, the nation's top political and technology innovators gather for two days of networking, schmoozing, intelligence-gathering, networking, skills-polishing, and did we mention networking? But we also try to look at the big picture of how technology is changing politics, and this June we're going to tackle the following big question: Can the Internet Fix Politics?

A majority of Americans thinks the country is on the wrong track. Congress is deeply divided. Legislation is often stalled by gridlock, or packed with pork. Fundraising dominates the time of politicians, while the media cycle speeds up and public attention crashes. Voters are more volatile, when they aren’t sitting out elections entirely.

It’s a troubling picture. But in recent years, a wide array of activists, academics, bloggers, hackers, politicians and visionaries have argued that the Internet can change politics and governance for the better. (With some smart dissents, to be sure.) This year at Personal Democracy Forum, the country’s premiere conference on technology and politics, we’ll explore the question: can the Internet fix politics?

Good article ...

"People are reluctant to participate in community activity when they do not have enough information to act responsibly. Issues such as fluoridation of water supplies or the establishment of nuclear power plants require knowledge that many people do not have. They simply do not know how to act. Thus, they will avoid participation as long as possible or until they have what they believe to be sufficient information. If forced, they will usually act negatively. This participatory action may be generalized as follows: Citizens will voluntarily participate in a community activity when they have better knowledge of an issue or situation."

Another barrier falls ..

"Seven of the world’s top 10 supercomputers use standard chips from A.M.D. and Intel, as do about 90 percent of the 500 fastest machines. “I think this says that supercomputing technology is affordable,” said Margaret Lewis, an A.M.D. director. “We are kind of getting away from this ivory tower.”

Yet another barrier falls in the effort to create a "meta-planning" project on Long Island ....

Another disconnected idea ...

"____________announced the formation of a "90/10 Coalition" that includes planners, educators, community groups, labor and others.

However, ________of the Long Island Progressive Coalition said at the presentation that she had not seen plans to make a grass-roots connection. "How do we get to my cousin, who doesn't go to these things?" Tyson said."

The One Long Island series of ideas encompasses the "grass-roots connection." This is a part of the "dynamic" concept we have been promoting.

Yet another example of potentially a good idea destined for a troubled implementation because of a lack of a "system" on Long Island for analyzing proposals and collaborating in an objective manner.

We should be able to simply "plug and play" ideas into the Long Island "dynamic grid", and get a reasonably quick and complete analysis of the pros and cons of a proposal and how to remedy any shortcomings.

Citizen Alert Network redux ...

"The Nassau County Legislature unanimously approved a bill Monday creating a Silver Alert system for reporting elderly people who wander away, similar to an Amber Alert system in place for missing children.

"It was an idea that had been percolating in my mind since last year, when an old and dear friend of mine, Hal Doliner, got the car keys and drove off and ended up killing himself in a one-car accident," Legis. Wayne Wink (D-Roslyn) said after the vote.

"We have had too many cases of older people wandering off and winding up in hospitals before they are reunited with their families," Wink said.

The bill requires Nassau County police to establish a registry into which families can put the names of adults with Alzheimer's disease or dementia. Police would send out immediate alerts to the media, hospitals and other police departments if they are reported missing."

Here is another worthwhile program disconnected from other similar (Amber Alert etc) ideas.

If the county (and government in general, Long Island in particular) could establish a "set of flexible standards" as proposed here with the "Citizen Alert Network" along with other One Long Island collaborative ideas, it would be a simple matter for the police department to have this program up immediately upon passage.

Almost there ...

Yet another indication that Long Island can create its own news and information portal apart from traditional media.

"The news business “is in a difficult time period right now, between what was and what will be,” said Gary Kebbel, the journalism program director for the Knight Foundation, which has backed 35 local Web experiments. “Our democracy is based upon geography, and we believe local information is such a core need for our democracy to survive.”

So the idea, in part, is to take many of these "hyper local" sources (and traditional sources) and through collaborative technology (see many previous posts) create a verifiable and dynamic source of information and analysis for Long Islanders.

It is really closer to reality than one might think.

It is also a fundamental requirement for Long Island if we are to create an environment for comprehensive, collaborative, dynamic, sustainable, positive change.

The future of news on Long Island?

The site has recruited some current and former government officials to write columns, and it will keep some of the popular columnists and bloggers who already work there, in addition to the large number of unpaid local bloggers whose work appears on the site. Hearst also plans to repackage material from its large stable of magazines for the site.

Is this the future of news on Long Island?

It looks a lot like the Long Island Meta-News and Information service we've been promoting on this site.

We would (of course) take it further to include a rotating editorial board and more advanced Web 3.0 features among other features. All detailed in previous posts.

Citizens informing citizens with verifiable information. Interesting concept.

When do we become embarrassed?

"Reid, Pelosi: Bad jobs on transparency
There's still no comprehensive list of components of the $789 billion stimulus that actually adds up to $789 billion. Which is not a great job by Pelosi and Reid. Here is something that was leaked, but even on this one we can't make it add up to $789 billion."

This just happened to be the story of the day, but it really is emblematic of the greater problem. It certainly is not the exclusive domain of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.

At what point do we the public and our elected representatives, become embarrassed at not knowing relevant information? At not understanding the consequences of our actions?

When do we become embarrassed enough to do something about breaking the cycle of stagnation we are in?

Do we enjoy being ignorant?

Of course not.

Can we make better more informed decisions?

Of course.

This is one of the main premises of the One Long Island Program (which could be the One (you-fill-in- the blank) Program).

We want to be better. We want to be more informed. We want to work collaboratively and directly, not through surrogates.

We just need the tools to do so.

Some updates ...

Sorry about the lack of posts lately.

It isn't that I've run out of ideas (although some might say that would be a good thing), I've just been busy on a number of other fronts.

1. Making some good progress on the "Green Accelerator" concept.

2. Even more promising developments on the whole One Long Island project and how it relates to "Meta- Planning" on Long Island.

3. My music CD project nearing completion. Not coming out too bad as far as I can tell from early reaction. Although people may just be acting politely so as not to crush my enthusiasm.

If you build it ... Part Two

So much of the news and information we receive is "bundled" and delivered from multiple sources.

Those of us who use RSS/XML readers on a regular basis know that there is a universe of information out there to be delivered in virtual real time for those willing to do a little exploration.

So if we were constructing a Long Island news and information "portal" or a series of collaborative "portals" what would we need to do?

First of all, let's be clear. The news and information is already generated by us. We may pay others for a service to distribute it and analyze it, but we are the news and information. 

This is not to diminish what media folks do or a particular expertise they may bring to a particular subject, but without us they're out of business. Much as we elect representatives from the various forms of government to work for our common interests and confer that privilege upon them, so too do we confer the same privilege upon the media.

Much of what we've discussed over the past year or so (even back to 1993 for that matter) is directly applicable to this particular product. In fact we've explored this theme with the Citizen Media and Citizen Alert posts (among many others) some time ago. I tend to see most of this as inter-related.

A good portion of information is free and one can very easily create a robust information portal and in fact can create a portal that the end user (us) can customize to their own particular viewing preferences. 

Moreover we can integrate LYDIA technology (as we are in a number of One Long Island projects already) to create a powerful news and information analysis tool.

The individual will be able to discern what is accurate and factual. How about that!

Ah ha you say, what about the hard hitting investigative reporting we all need to make sure those in high places are not up to low down and dirty deeds!

Again. Think of where most of the leads come from to expose wrong doing. That's right. You and me.

Will we always need professional investigative journalists? Of course. But they are simply an outgrowth of an investigative public, active and knowledgeable in its own affairs with access to the information and tools necessary in a representative democracy. 

We really shouldn't depend on journalists or elected officials or others to do our homework for us.

Am I advocating the dissolution of all profit based media? No. Advertising dollars pay salaries. Reporters aren't going to work for free. Someone has to gather up even the "bundled" news although over time this need may dissipate as well.

Am I advocating the fact that an organized and collaborative public can inform itself on an equal, or in some cases superior manner? Yes.

More in Part Three.

Putting the "public" in public media ...

The "public" as subsidizer of the news business? The "public" as a monolithic "object" in league with the media?

Or the "public" we envision in our "One Long Island" projects?

"....While it is the only business protected by the Constitution, the press isn’t shielded from the laws of supply and demand. If the current business model isn’t working, then it’s because the distribution of news has radically changed, allowing those with Internet access to dictate their news content.

Judy and Mickey are not going to be able to save Newsday, and the idea of a local media collective is dead on arrival. The future of Newsday will be decided by veteran financial professionals, seasoned media analysts, digital marketers, government regulators and, most importantly, by the market forces that are shaping how and who gets their news.

If Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. are the front-runners in a bid that comes in at over half a billion dollars, then it’s because he understands economy of scale, the impact of digital media on traditional print and how to ensure that people still want a newspaper in their hands. Others suggest that Daily News publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, the New York Observer or Cablevision will all make a run. All of them will find a lucrative local market.

Newspapers in America have always been a business. If we prop them up with government subsidies and shotgun business models we might as well bring back the telegraph and the tintype, but the end result will still be obsolescence."

"The public is an idea, which would never have occurred to people in ancient times, for the people themselves en masse in corpore <8 took steps in any active situation, and bore responsibility for each individual among them, and each individual had to personally, without fail, present himself and submit his decision immediately to approval or disapproval. When first a clever society makes concrete reality into nothing, then the Media 9 creates that abstraction, "the public," which is filled with unreal individuals, who are never united nor can they ever unite simultaneously in a single situation or organization, yet still stick together as a whole. The public is a body, more numerous than the people which compose it, but this body can never be shown, indeed it can never have only a single representation, because it is an abstraction. Yet this public becomes larger, the more the times become passionless and reflective and destroy concrete reality; this whole, the public, soon embraces everything. . . .

The public is not a people, it is not a generation, it is not a simultaneity, it is not a community, it is not a society, it is not an association, it is not those particular men over there, because all these exist because they are concrete and real; however, no single individual who belongs to the public has any real commitment; some times during the day he belongs to the public, namely, in those times in which he is nothing; in those times that he is a particular person, he does not belong to the public. Consisting of such individuals, who as individuals are nothing, the public becomes a huge something, a nothing, an abstract desert and emptiness, which is everything and nothing. . . .

The Media is an abstraction (because a newspaper is not concrete and only in an abstract sense can be considered an individual), which in association with the passionlessness and reflection of the times creates that abstract phantom, the public, which is the actual leveller. . . . More and more individuals will, because of their indolent bloodlessness, aspire to become nothing, in order to become the public, this abstract whole, which forms in this ridiculous manner: the public comes into existence because all its participants become third parties. 10 This lazy mass, which understands nothing and does nothing, this public gallery seeks some distraction, and soon gives itself over to the idea that everything which someone does, or achieves, has been done to provide the public something to gossip about. . . . The public has a dog for its amusement. That dog is the Media. 11 If there is someone better than the public, someone who distinguishes himself, the public sets the dog on him and all the amusement begins. This biting dog tears up his coat-tails, and takes all sort of vulgar liberties with his leg—until the public bores of it all and calls the dog off. That is how the public levels."

Two problems with a common source

"Put simply, the economic model of news gathering – of maintaining costly overseas correspondents and news bureaus, of investigative journalists – is being eviscerated," Moffett wrote. "And it is being eviscerated by the Internet."

"Just how difficult will it be to enact any of the reforms proposed last week by the Lundine commission on efficiency and competitiveness? Answer: Pretty difficult."

The above two stories illustrate pretty well the dilemma we've been exploring over the past year or so (or back to 1993 in fact) and why we've been proposing the "One Long Island" series of projects.

Information gathering and analysis is changing at a rapid rate. We need new dynamic, collaborative and flexible organizations, structures and models to address this new reality.

Accurate timely information/analysis and substantive, sustainable, positive change are virtually impossible without them.

The above two illustrations are certainly not the only areas in need of reform, but they are a large part of what needs to be changed.

The old ways just don't work anymore.

Good overview of Klogging: Long Island Klogging Network?

"Klogging for Managers - 4/19/02; 10:44:41 PM by PW 1. Introduction. You are a Knowledge Weblog (klog) sales rep calling on an IT department and its customers. What tools do you need to explain your product? To make your case? To guide decision making? To boilerplate deployment and maintenance? You are a Manager who wants to bootstrap knowledge management on a shoe string. What tools do you want to avoid risks, pave the way for success, and to make the whole process fun? Here is a partial list of what a klogging tool vendor's marketing department might produce. Suggestions? 2. Why does Klogging work? whitepaper. Includes case studies and measures of success. Klogging meets some knowledge management goals. Personal Memory Control = Freedom to write Memory = Accessible History + Views Voice = Experience + Judgement Ease = Usage Emergent Knowledge Many voices, each unique, contribute to the body of knowledge. Interactions and social behavior produce second-order results; whole greater than sum of the parts The body of observation grows daily. It is the base for pattern analysis, trend detection, memetic propagation. Marketplace of ideas. Klogs' narrative form and easy citation by linking encourages discussion and debate. Community Identity Out of everyone in the world, you choose some to know better than the rest. Self organizing and affiliating. Meaning, wisdom emerge. Klogging overcomes previously experienced problems. Klogging vs. the 11 Deadly KM Sins http://dijest.editthispage.com/klogs/deadlykmsins "Drift or Shift", Fahey and Prusak, 1998 http://www.alise.org/nondiscuss/conf00_Davenport-Cronin_paper.htm http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:HcDTeml3oCwC:www.alise.org/nondiscuss/conf00_Davenport-Cronin_paper.htm Motivation Context Memory Usability Klogging rewards people for doing what comes naturally. People tell stories. They observe what's going on and comment. They narrate their lives to themselves. They seek recognition and approval from others. They connect with each other. They try to matter, to influence their surroundings, to control a little of their world. Klogging gives people places to do this. Sanctioned places, safe and comfortable. Suggestions? 3. How do I deploy a klogging at my organization? Klogging Deployment Project Plan. See my project management templates page. Work Breakdown Structure (wbs). Stages and tasks in a model project. Plan Get Project Preapproval Assess Requirements Design Solution Get Project Approval Pilot Rollout Control Tim Jarrett suggests three approaches to deployment at a university: There are three ways to do it that I can see, each with its own merits and disadvantages: Centralized push. Have Sloan’s IT services folks set up a Radio Community Server and put Radio on every first year MBA’s laptop. In the classroom. Have a few professors start using Radio as a knowledge sharing mechanism and put part of the class participation grade for their students in how well they use their weblogs. Approach #2 might have some legs. There are some classes, including the introduction to IT class, a few of the marketing classes, and a class being taught on virtual communities, with which Radio is a natural fit. You might get the professors on board pretty quickly, with the students doing exercises in Radio for a semester. From the grassroots. Have a few bleeding edge folks get their sleeves up and evangelize it. Phil > Let's see if we can adapt this to other organizations. User referrals. A grassroots approach. Seed early adopters with the tool. Listen carefully for hot buttons. Probe for their serious problems and experiment with how the tool makes things better. Pilot projects. Like any pilot, you want to: prove your solution works, discover which features and practices: generated the most value, provoked the strongest positive emotional response learn the best ways to use it in this environment. (click for entire article)"

More on a Long Island "Citizen Media"

News of the sale of Newsday has prompted many to worry about the potential lack of diversity in media coverage on Long Island. This clearly is a valid concern.

I think however, it misses the enormity and broad scope of the information and media changes that are upon us.

Some theorize that we have become too dependent on traditional sources of media, not only to inform us, but to think for us as well.

The explosion of blogging and other Web 2.0 technologies has given a voice to many who were previously shut out of the public policy arena, but it has also too widely dispersed and in some ways confused the general public even more. Additionally most blogging is "opinion based" and not subject to rigorous scrutiny, but so then is much of the "traditional" news we receive today.

Some have made good attempts to create like minded "blogospheres" and multimedia forums using Web 2.0. But often these "universes" are revolving around different centers and do not interact with one another.

Wouldn't it be helpful to know the facts behind the opinion? Isn't it more productive to have a flexible, collaborative system in place?

Would it be perfect? No.

Would it stop a lot of the "silliness" that currently invades our public policy discussions. I believe that it would.

So then we can continue to let other folks "think" for us, or we can develop and use the tools we require to "think" for ourselves.

The convergence of information technologies and media technologies that have accurate, verifiable information and standard and ad hoc analytical tools available to almost anyone with the will to use them is right around the corner. We can use them for positive change or allow other folks to use them to maintain the non-productive parts of the current "status quo."

Some have said to me, aren't you advocating a "lack of diversity" by promoting "One Long Island?" Just the opposite.

By creating flexible systems, collaborative tools with Web 3.0 technologies for the general public and policy makers (of all stripes) we give ourselves the best chance of keeping a representative democracy and diverse ideas alive and well.

What part does traditional media play in all this? That story is yet to be written so to speak. But it will need to balance the rise of the general public to inform itself and still maintain a viable business model.

I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive as we've discussed in many previous posts.

Here is a good article on Web 3.0 and "citizen media."

Like we've said before. Change will happen whether you want it to or not.

Avoiding the Suppression of Progress: Part II

Did you ever notice that the same voices are heard repeatedly?

When we say the same voices, we are primarily speaking about "institutional voices" with a built in large readership or large numbers of viewers or organizational members, not letters or comments to the editor. We are not even talking about the occasional op-ed or the blogosphere. Institutional voices control the flow of information and, as importantly, the frequency with which the information is printed or broadcast.

Whether in the regional newspapers, the local newspapers, major organizations, government, the local cable editorials, guest panelists, guest columnists what have you, we seem to hear the same or similar voices heard almost exclusively.

Why does this happen?

Well certainly, if you have a point of view and you are in control of how information and opinions are released, you are certainly within your rights to proceed in any legal manner you wish. Additionally, most media and large organizations have a financial interest (and maybe a philosophical interest) in "staying alive."

But does this really help achieve progress on Long Island (or elsewhere for that matter)?

To believe it helps achieve progress, you would have to believe in the almost absolute certainty of your opinion, the information you are dispensing and the method(s) you used to arrive at your conclusions.

I believe the suppression of information and access to "institutional media" and other major information outlets prevents long term sustainable progress because it is essentially a violation of the public trust. It contributes to the "cycle of stagnation" by insuring only certain opinions and information is given "legitimate status" based upon potentially limited methodologies.

Without the public trust, long term progress (however defined) is virtually impossible.

This is why we have proposed the Meta-Portal and Citizen Media Network ideas among many others, as part of the One Long Island project. Open communication is vital in building the public trust and creating long term, sustainable progress.

Certainly events like this one are helpful as a part of the process. But, as we stated previously, isn't it really a perpetuation of the old "static" way of doing things?

New thinking needs a new "support system." One Long Island is potentially part of that solution.

More in Part III.

A brief intermission ...

Sorry about the lack of posts recently.

I'm actually engaged in attempting to put some of the "One Long Island" theories into practice.

I should have a few updates soon.

Change ...

With all the talk about "change" in this presidential election, I thought I would republish this post as I think it has some relevance to the current debate.

Another way to use Lydia/TextMap ...

We posted previously about how we believe the Lydia/TextMap project at Stony Brook would improve New York State's Project Sunlight.

Now imagine a way to access all Long Island Information (although it is really applicable to any size region) and to assess through sophisticated analysis the veracity and accuracy of the information?

For example, is what we're being told more likely or less likely to be accurate based upon all the relevant available data and additionally, based upon all the relationships and secondary and tertiary sources related to this data?

Holy cow Batman, I think we're on to something!

Again the trick is to get access to all the relevant data (government, libraries, newspapers, internet etc...) in a flexible yet secure manner that will allow us to do predetermined and ad hoc queries (and metaqueries).

More on this later.

Long Island Meta Media Foundation: Part One

Thanks to the Long Island Press for the kind words ...

Citizen Journalists

Long Island Blogs Tackle Topics From Politics To Sports To Rude Behavior In The Hamptons...And Beyond

By Long Island Press Staff

"It's 2 a.m., and that pepperoni pizza isn't nearly as enjoyable as it was four hours ago. You click on your ungodly expensive cable/satellite TV system, and despite hundreds of channels, there is nothing to watch.
That mode of leisure exhausted, you boot up your computer, because billions of websites can't deny you enjoyment, can they? But even then, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees, as you might scan hundreds of uninspired and/or un-updated pages that make you wish you had settled for the salad.
Fear not. The citizen journalist has your back. From our own acid-tongued Chick Dubinsky to LI master maven Lou Savinetti (http://longislandideafactory.blogspot.com), they bring thoughts and news the mainstream press never could."

Read the entire article here:

http://longislandpress.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=13617&TM=83529.21