I think it is not the tool as such becasue Web 1.0 aimed the same, to work people together. it will be the mentality, a state of mind which is now absent.  

not sure what everyone else thinks.. 

The controversial bit of Shirky's pronouncement is

 "For the first time in history, we have tools that truly allow for this."

 I don't see anything I can do today that I couldn't do 1,2,5 or 10 years ago. It may have got a bit easier, though getting here to post this suggests otherwise, and the critical mass of users / contributors / readers may have been reached, but I haven't seen a quantum leap in terms of the tools available.

 Web 2.0 is nowhere near the same as replacing the horse with the tractor or the scythe with the threshing machine.

"They would in fact point to the proliferation of self proclaimed web 2.0 tools as massive"

No doubt, that is somewhat in the nature of self proclamation. Fact remains I could stick a video on the web in 1996 or have a discussion in a forum or Usenet group or whatever so it isn't about the tools at all.

"but we keep losing all the big social movement fights...even though the tools are all there"

a losing argument in fancy fonts and moving pictures remains a losing argument. Web 2.0 may also be talking to itself ( a self selecting homogeneity perhaps ?) while the world passes by across the street.

Web2.0 ( as an general evolutionary stage in the process of interconnecting people/machines that has been happening since before 1996 as cynicaleng points out ) is allowing more people to participate in social action than before. But this is probably just a result of increasing penetration and drop in cost of the tools to access "the network" together with general useability improvements.

For me though the utopian view of this ignores the increasing corporatisation/privatisation of civil society that is happening in parallel to this.

Google may promise to "do no evil" but they are beholden to their shareholders and profit first. As we give more of our personal information to Nokia, Facebook, Microsoft, seduced by the dubious pleasures of open air pillow fights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillow_fight_flash_mob we need strong tools to protect privacy, individuality and autonomy, for those who chose to opt out of the brave new world being sold to us.

Do you recall the first mobile phones? Suitcase battery type fellows that were clunky and cumbersome …. but today! On the other side of the coin, what about those ‘virtual reality’ gaming headset and glove sensor things that allowed the wearer of the apparatus to become immersed in a game? One technology flew, one floundered.
Sometimes it’s difficult to predict, but my opinion of Web 2.0 is that it has elements of advancement which may be of fantastic use, but it is getting too big for its boots if it thinks it can change the world.
If we accept that Web 1.0 was all about static information being available for us to view and make use of and that Web 2.0 sees the potential for interactive use of the web (in all its forms) then there is certainly potential.
I believe the greatest benefits will be from ‘web networks’ of the type that use uniform embedded toolbars to group together associated organisations with relative menus and links etc. These systems are fast developing to offer document handling, group conferencing, forums and so on. All in one ‘online network’. Now that’s useful.
But social networking and blogs are very individual focussed and I think are developing simply because of a need in society today to have the 15 mins of fame. ‘I am online, therefore I am’.
If I want to reach like-minded professionals, am I interested in reading the thoughts and twitterings of countless blogging individuals to do this? No way. Perhaps I could visit their virtual market place to learn more? Not a chance!
If I want to join people to change the world, I want succinct, accessible information made readily available to tell me if you share my direction. I.E. just like a good website in fact! I don’t want to know what you had for breakfast nor am I interested in getting a picture of your breakfast e-transported to my mobile phone, nor does it matter to me how many 'friends' you have!

My question to the forum is with such a vast volume of people, ideas, information and nonsense on the web, how can charities (read: all VCOs) find the people online they need to communicate with in order to change the world?

The communities may already be set up online and talking together, in which case how do we hop on that group?
If you have to set the group yourself, how do you get people onto it? If you build it, will they come?

Having worked on a community IT grant project for the past two years, my questions always revolve around the small issues that stop beneficiaries taking in and focusing on the bigger picture.

Many of my clients have had little or no direct experience of developing IT resources and it is often a long time before they reach a point of understanding about the potential - and even then, other barriers can remain in their way - time, more money, logistics, staffing. Things we all face from time to time.

But going back to the basic point of disseminating information about key tools, I find it frustrating getting across that potential for IT to change people's lives.

Here's the best and simplest way of describing it:

I was at a birthday BBQ a couple of weeks back and this trouble-shooting project manager looked me in the eye told me his tale on this same theme.

He called it the “favourite album” story where you give someone something you believe is totally amazing and they are just bemused and not very receptive.

“Here, borrow my LP, it’s amazing and track 7 will just blow your mind”, “Gee, thanks, I will sometime.” And they put it down and go back to what they were doing.

For me, developing the potential of Web 2.0 is about moving on from stagnating old habits and routines and embracing the new - and in some cases in the charity and voluntary sector, that means shutting people in a room for a couple of days with a trainer and no diaries and no distractions!

Essentially, hands on training focuses on Web 2.0's benefits and is, I believe, the most effective way to get the changes in place.

And for those that might be casually curious and cast a glance over the changes, I think services such as RSS feeds and other tools have to be simpler and more immediately accessible for a wider audience. Big, simple Skype style buttons and branding are required.

Having digested all of this and pausing for reflection, I am pleased to recall that a couple of my groups have recently just started doing some amazing things, like live big screen links to India, producing service user guides for the Over 50s, etc.

Steve Dixon

Hey Marc, do you have a meaty example to illustrate your point that...

"...but we keep losing all the big social movement fights...even though the tools are all there!"

can you show us how something that was lost in the past continues to be lost despite the "new" armoury of tools ?

It is not simple - but things ARE changing.

I took my first IT job back in 1976. These are truly magic boxes we are holding this discussion through. And we should never forget that we are standing on shoulders that represent a whole lot of work, work that way-predates these technologies in fact!

But web 2.0 does represent a remarkable shift. My kids are 27 & 23 and have been using FaceBook since almost its inception.

This represents a new kind of "mesh" - that allows them to be aware of their broad community of friends and acquaintences without getting swamped. The emegence of micro-donations in each others names, as small gifts in this community is one example of hte kind of innovations that are on the move.

My theory about the way forward for justice & peace (to clarify, I see it in this order: Love, Justice, Peace - with Fairness as a simple alternative to Justice) is through networks of networks of trust. With the end goal being to develop the ability to marginalize the big, cruel world - and to make viable the close-knit loving one. (no Eutopia here - still horros and hardships in the mix , but, a vibrant culture ...)

I think we are all in the midst of knitting these networks together day in and day out - and have been doing the work to preserve and mend our traditional "nets".

My take, Web 2.0, can help us manage the ocean of informationa and possible connections and to develop conscious, strong personal/family (in the big sense) networks of trust that are beginning to link in action.

Lem
Philadelphia

--
The Wind and the waves favor the skilled sailor

Well web 2.0 technologies are indeed more tools we can use for social action. But as we all know tools do not build a house...

With that said, the emergence of the blog really transformed the web for many of my smaller advocacy clients. None of them actually needed a blog precisely, but for the first time it really hit home the sense that, "yeah, I should be able to maintain my website with ease, and connect with people through it." It brought a lot of people out of the area of customization and into toolsets that helped them focus on social advocacy more, and maintaining technology less. This is just one story, but to me there are certaintly gains in efficiency in communications through web 2.0 technologies.

I do see these tools helping movements have more efficacy, but its the power of the movements themselves that forms the real yardstick for success here.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leland Design
http://www.lelanddesign.com

I suggest that online tools are one set of methods that may be used within a process of change. However, first it helps to think about the purpose, the people and the context. There's a diagram of that here - please add it to the post if useful.
On the other hand Tom Steinberg of mySociety argues - here for example - that carefully chosen and focussed tools are the best way to get change in some circumstances.
I don't think it is either or.
How about "in what circumstances, used by what people, to what end, and over what time, are Web 2.0 tools most likely to change the world?"
I think most technologies change things - but it is pretty difficult to see quite how they will in advance!

I definitely felt like I was on the hotseat yesterday. Three simple reasons, all that tie directly into what the hotseat topic is:

1. Bad Instructions - The day started off with me screwing up and violating one of the most basic rules of online organizing...make darn sure folks understand the step by step instructions they need to follow to join the online engagement. Apologies to the 2,000+ people out there yesterday that I didn't serve with proper instructions.

2. Difficult Access - The process for folks to register and then log-in, though apparently easy, really isn't. Actually the process isn't hard but finding an easy way to do so is.

3. Careful what you wish for - There was a barrage of insightful comments, questions, issues and points of view shared by many people who jumped in to the conversation. That required me to really keep an eye on the conversation all day.

What is the thread for me on all this? Know thy stakeholders, constituents, online community members - whatever you want to call folks!

So my question for today therefore is:

????? What do we have to do to ensure that we know thy stakeholders, constituents, online community members, offline community we want to engage online, whatever?

"A state of mind which is now absent"... I'm still not sure whether Web 2.0 tools can change people's state of mind on their own. I attend steering group meeting of local community groups, and it's there that decisions are made. Many of the most influential participants are not computer literate at all. Those that are don't necessarily have much to say.

I want to go back to this question about the tools we might need to "change the world"

We need to be clear about what parts of the world we want to change, and in what ways. The triangle diagram that David Wilcox shared (http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Triangle) is helpful here. The overarching change I am hoping for is to create a fairer world, but that is broken down into little steps, and these are oriented to different groups.

* Content management tools and blogs certainly can help groups focus on their message, rather than managing the website IT, but we still need to work hard to attract the attention of the audience (whether the audience is passive supporters, activists, the general public or whatever)

* This kind of discussion forum makes it easier to catch up on the conversation than trawling back through a pile of emails, but it still needs us to commit time to listening to what others say (or write), and then making constructive contributions. IN this way the tools may improve our ability to learn and improve our long term impact.

* Wiki's allow us to work on bids together, but we still need to come up with a convincing case for funding.

* New mesh networks may help us find partners to work with, but we still need to co-ordinate our voices if we are going to shift centres of political and economic power.

So, for me, the tools are interesting, but discussing things at this very abstract level. We need to think more specifically about the different functional aims we might have with different bits of technology. Ann Light & I have written a paper about this, which I've shared at: http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/node/638

It is a draft model at present, and feedback is welcome.

Andy

There is a clear thread here that states that the tools are not enough. Additionally, there is a thread that states that the tools could enable connection and communication that could catalyze a better world. What is missing is the greater context of social action. Ultimately, what I want is irrelevant. What tools I use are irrelevant. How ever, what we want is critical and what tools we use are critical. My individuality is only important in ti's context as a member of my community(s). And in that context, it is critical.

There is a fantastic artical by Monica Sharma of the UN (http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/backissue/f2007/personal-planetary.shtm...) where she describes a model where self holds (sources) all action. It is a concentric circle diagram but it is best understood as each lager circle holding the circles within it. The diagram moves from the largest (or all encompassing, source) circle is self which holds the next circle that is systems which holds the next circle which is transactions. (http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/bm~pix/sharma_fig2~s600x600.jpg) For planetary change to occur, we must source are actions from self, through systems, with tools. None of these circles are less important than another. Change cannot happen with out, in Ms. Sharma's words, a Full Spectrum approach.

So, the question, will web 2.0 be the toolset that we will use to change the world is interesting, but, far too abstract to be useful. What if we root the question is something that needs to be done.

Pick a milenium goal.

Pick a broken global system (Pharmaceuticals, Defense/Arms, Trade, Agrofood Industry, ...).

Pick a global issue (Fisheries Depletion, Water, Education for all, Illegal Drugs, Intellectual Property rights, International labor and migration rules,...)

And now ask if web 2.0 tools will be game changing. That is an interesting question but only in the conext of other questions that are something like: Will we/I find the strength, will, common purpose, desire, ganas, source, ground, perch to create this change? What is the structure of the system that perpetuates the problem? What are the believes of the players that perpetuate the problem? What is the win? What does the future look like? And, what tools do we need to deploy to understand the problem, engage the stakeholders, create, monitor and sustain change.

How many times have you hammered in a nail with a wrench or the heel of a shoe. Tools morph to fit context. Our tools are better. Our problems or worse. Our resonance is fading.

I believe there is a shift taking place in the zeitgeist right now. Web 2.0, to me, is a continuation of change that communications technology has been brining for decades, starting with the telephone--more people are able to affordably connect across towns, countries and continents, personally and professionally. I think there is an increased awareness of our connection to others that is facilitated by 2-way (bloggers posting cell phone videos of events as they unfold), 24-hour news.

That said, I agree very strongly with the arguments many have made here--that the tools are just tools. I firmly believe that. We can use them well, or badly. If I have a poorly constructed message, the ability for me to communicate more quickly with more people at any hour of the day will not magically fix anything.

I am more interested in the way that Web 2.0 tools connect us shift our perceptions of our world--of other people, of other cultures, etc.

And of course... I only had time to come over to this discussion because Twitter is down! ;)

Well if there is one thing that is clear from the past few days it is that there is general broad agreement that the tools are simply not enough and that there are a variety of other issues that drive the use of the tools. Yesterday AndyDearden for example states, "We need to be clear about what parts of the world we want to change, and in what ways." Conches follows up with, "What tools I use are irrelevant. How ever, what we want is critical and what tools we use are critical." Johanna.Bates closes yesterday with a strategic communications issue when she writes, "If I have a poorly constructed message, the ability for me to communicate more quickly with more people at any hour of the day will not magically fix anything."

Several folks also comment that they want the discussion us to move from the larger abstract question we started with, "Will Web 2.0 be the tool set we need to change the world?" to more concrete ways of questioning the relevance and strategic role that Web 2.0 tools play in social movements.

AndyDearden also reminds us that the triangle diagram that David Wilcox shared (http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Triangle) is instructive as it asks us to think about "* The purpose - what are you trying to achieve, * The people - what attitudes, skills, motivation, * The context - what is the culture, history of the situation... and only then, what process and methods will be appropriate."

Assuming we are clear on purpose, people, context, culture, etc. AND we have common purpose and desire, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK TO APPROPRIATELY AND EFFECTIVELY USE WEB 2.0 TOOLS AND STRATEGIES?

I ask that you try to be very specific with the questions you add to the list and then maybe on Thursday, Friday and next week we can try to answer some of the questions. I promise to then pull it together into a usable resource/tool any of use can use to be more strategic. That would definitely be a move from 'abstract' to concrete. I'll get us started.

Question: How do you identify and then NARROW down what tools make sense to deploy?
Question: How do you align with your capacity and/or your organisation's capacity to deploy the tool?

REMEMBER - Let's try today to just generate the question and hold off on answers. Thanks, Marc

Q: Who is your target audience for "change" - are you holding a massive conversation with yourself or with an elective homogeneity while your target audience is oblivious to your efforts ?

Q: If you believe you're looking to change something that is controlled and regulated by people who do not engage with Web 2.0 - say World Trade for example - at what stage do you break off from using Web 2.0 to build a momentum and have to use ye olde methods to engage with the suits in charge ? Or are you just going to arrange a cannon fodder flash mob for the next WTO meeting ?

Well hi Marc,

After a long journey I have made to your discussion. Before I take a seat and say my piece, let me grab a coffee and a cake and organise my thoughts.

Mike

--
It's still capitalism stupid

Question: Where do you look for reliable information about the capacity you are going to need to deploy tool X?

Question: Where do you look for reliable information about the merits of different tools for a given objective?

Question: How are the benefits of the transaction distributed amongst the tool purchaser; the tool user; the tool maker and the tool evangalists?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

Following on from Marc and cynicaleng:

What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

While I'm here might be worth flagging up the conversation we had at the UK Circuit Rider Conference back in February when we "spectrogrammed" this issue - http://www.ukriders.info/conference/welcome

Ian R @ Lasa, London

Keep it coming folks......this is great stuff! Your questions spur me to add a couple more:

Question: How do you determine if and/or when and/or how to integrate the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies with your other online and/or offline engagement strategies and tactics.

Question: How do balance the need to perfectly target the right tool for the right job with the need to stay comfortable with experimentation and learning as you go?

Question: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

Question: Web x.y makes use of global communications networks owned by others. What happens when this permission to use is withdrawn - do we have a Plan B?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

Question: What Web 2.0 tools *aren't* being used by the people you are trying to reach with your work, and *why* aren't they using them? Is it because they cannot access them? Or is it because the tools don't serve their needs? If they don't have tools they need, or the tools for them need to be better/different, how can we address that gap in our work?

Hi Marc - all
As a practical way of thinking about what tools, in what circumstances, for what purpose, some of you may be familiar with the workshop game developed by Drew Mackie and I - played at some PRADSA events.
I recently did a couple of versions for communications and fundraising, which you can find here
http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Communications+game
Creative Commons Share Alike - so do download, use, amend - whatever.
Haven't yet done a multi-player online version, though ... in case there are some games developers here, interested

Question: If Web 2.0 is the tool set we need to change the world, what is wrong with the tried and tested tools we been using for the last few millenium to effect change up until now?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

Perhaps with all these tools comes a sense of tool fatigue? It seems to me there is a lot of hype about web 2.0 but not enough hype about what exactly we mean by changing the world and what we want to change about it.

So then gailwatt - Could I take your comment and frame it as a question that reads:

??? Are there any tools that aren't classified as Web 2.0 tools that could be helpful in us meeting our goals?

...and Kutoma, could I do the same and turn your phrase into a question that reads:

??? What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

My question/comment is this--and hello everyone, I would have joined in earlier, but I have working on a big grant application for Web2.0 with a community organisation in Melbourne, so these issues are very relevant.

Assuming (and this is the big assumption, but I'll take it as 'true' for the purposes of this question--(assuming that Web2.0 does have some form of community uptake, particularly in a disadvantaged community), what do we mean by the community change that is supposed to result from this? How do we demonstrate social good? community benefit? How do we show for example, that homeless young people have better lives, or that people can access their pension benefits more easily. I'm not speaking here of different sorts of evaluation techniques, but rather, just what should we be looking for, or trying to find out, with limited budgets and time...I am asking this because it is the hard question that is posed by funders--'you want us to spend technology on your organisation, and we here lots about how great it all is, but prove to us that it actually results in social good". What are some indicators?

And remember, good qualitative research is strongly indicative--we just don't want one story, w...e want many stories that make the point

I have my own ideas...and we will be having a workshop/conference day on June 17 in Melbourne (where John Davies of IT for Communities will be speaking) to try and develop a conversation as the basis for some indepth research.

But what are your ideas?

Question: How effective will Web 2.0 tools be for those folks who live at the edge of the network - places where connectivity is spotty, computing skills are minimal, and resources are limited? The argument is that the majority of the world lives at the edge of the network, and so for maximum effect, any Web 2.0 tools should be appropriate for them. Check out www.edgeof.net .

Bill Lester

Yesterday you developed an impressive list of questions to ask before making Wb 2.0 tool and strategy decisions. Next week we'll try to answer these questions by taking a few each day. For now I invite you to add to the list, review what is here, suggest edits, etc.

Note - I've taken the liberty in some cases of extracting questions from narratives that some of you provided. Please feel free to edit at will.

Questions shared on day 4:

walester
Question: How effective will Web 2.0 tools be for those folks who live at the edge of the network - places where connectivity is spotty, computing skills are minimal, and resources are limited?

Cynicaleng
Q: Who is your target audience for "change" - are you holding a massive conversation with yourself or with an elective homogeneity while your target audience is oblivious to your efforts ?

Q: If you believe you're looking to change something that is controlled and regulated by people who do not engage with Web 2.0 - say World Trade for example - at what stage do you break off from using Web 2.0 to build a momentum and have to use ye olde methods to engage with the suits in charge

Mike Veitch
Q: How are the benefits of the transaction distributed amongst the tool purchaser; the tool user; the tool maker and the tool evangalists? (Andy Dearden added remember benefits to the capital provider who may claim ownership to intellectual property)

Q: Web x.y makes use of global communications networks owned by others. What happens when this permission to use is withdrawn - do we have a Plan B?

Q: If Web 2.0 is the tool set we need to change the world, what is wrong with the tried and tested tools we been using for the last few millenium to effect change up until now?-

Floos4Good
Q: How can nonprofits quickly and inexpensively find and adapt those tool sets for their specialized needs?" (Even if those tools aren't web 2.0 themselves)

conches
Q: As we consider use of Wb 2.0 tools and strategies, how do we want to root our considerations? (By mission, by program, by campaign goal, etc.)

Q: Will the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies be ‘game changing’ in regards to our efforts?

AndyDearden
Q: Where do you look for reliable information about the capacity you are going to need to deploy tool X?

Q: Where do you look for reliable information about the merits of different tools for a given objective?

Q: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

IanRuneckles
Q: What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

Johanna.Bates
Q: What Web 2.0 tools *aren't* being used by the people you are trying to reach with your work, and *why* aren't they using them? Is it because they cannot access them? Or is it because the tools don't serve their needs? If they don't have tools they need, or the tools for them need to be better/different, how can we address that gap in our work?

gailwatt
Q: Are there any tools that aren't classified as Web 2.0 tools that could be helpful in us meeting our goals?

Q: Can these tools ( Facebook, bloggs, wikis -Web 2.0 - and other internet interaction) give us a democratic society with greater influence?

Q: If politicians and their government administrations will not give us individual citizens more influence, how can we citizens get more influence?

Paula Graham
Q: What ‘wider’ issues (ethical issues, who owns services, etc.) other than cost, ease of use, etc. should be taken into consideration when making choices about tools?

Q: In what situations should free/open source be prioritized when making selections?

kutoma
Q: What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

marcosten
Q: How do you identify and then NARROW down what tools make sense to deploy??Q: How do you align with your capacity and/or your organisation's capacity to deploy the tool?

Q: How do you determine if and/or when and/or how to integrate the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies with your other online and/or offline engagement strategies and tactics.

Q: How do you balance the need to perfectly target the right tool for the right job with the need to stay comfortable with experimentation and learning as you go?

Q: As we proceed with the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies what do we want to measure to best understand the impact that these tools and strategies on our broader goals?

Q: What are the most appropriate ways to measure the impact of Web 2.0 tools and strategies we deploy?

Q: What type of changes will you have to help staff and external stakeholders deaL with as they use and adapt to new ways of working that Web 2.0 tools and strategies can lead to?

Q: How best can you deal with these changes?

what are the (often serendipitous) opportunities of sharing video eg can we build and sustain conversations outside the dominant paradigm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onBqm2nG8yk and explore other "ways of being/seeing"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o

Hello all - Acceptance of Web 2.0 tools within the non-profit sector will depend not on how neat the tools are but on what results the NPOs can expect from the technology. It seems many of us (myself included) beleive the community developed by Web 2.0 applications can make s difference to NPOs, in terms of increasing engagement, donations of money time and things and so on)...but for me the question is how long will it take to prove that out? NPOs seem very comfortable with tools like direct mail, telephone solicitation and so on, but those tools have immediate payoffs that can be measured, while Web 2.0 seems like a much longer play.

Q: How do we deploy Web 2.0 technologies in the context of current technologies in order to begin to develop metrics to justify costs?

John

A couple of particular things that social networking tools seem to be good for are:
a) developing peripheral awareness of what others are doing so that it is easier to see potential opportunities / create new networks to get STUFF done
b) searching to find people who might be able to help you do STUFF

One thing we are talking about in the PRADSA project is potential designs for something that we are calling PRADSAX - see http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/taxonomy/term/183 for a general description, and http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/taxonomy/term/189 for a set of user stories about the kind of application we are thinking about.

If you find the idea interesting, and you want to help us design it, you could give us more user stories, or you might want to join the Chelmsford event looking at 'Where the money comes from' http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/node/575

Andy

cool story in today's bbc technology section on aid agencies using google earth to get their story across
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7417665.stm

Good morning! Hope you all had a relaxing weekend.

As far as this week my suspicion is that we'll see two different tracks of discussion. one that is opened ended and one that is structured and connected to my push to have us jointly develop answers to the many questions brainstormed at the end of last week.

I'll do my best on the open-ended discussion to help support the sharing. As far as the structured discussion my plan is to 'open the floor' each day with a few questions to focus on for that day.

I hope this all makes sense. Cheers, Marc

Colleagues - I'd like to open the floor for reaction to these questions. REMEMBER my challenge to you is to share how you think an organisation or individual working for social change goes about answering the questions below. The reason to approach things this way is that we've acknowledged that every organisation and context for considering the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies is different. And so maybe the best service we could provide to the field of practice would be to generate some real practical process suggestions so anyone engaging in the decision-making can do it strategically. Lets give it a try.

---------
QUESTIONS
---------

<> Q: In what situations should free/open source be prioritized when making selections?

<> Q: What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

<> Q: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

<> Q: What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

Several things to write. I'll do them as separate postings:

One:

I've been lurking and skimming and I now have a mistake to confess.

I saw "flag this" and thought it was a way for me to highlight stuff I wanted to come back to later - like putting stars on my google mail. I started to "flag". Having flagged the first item that I really wanted to come back to I realised that the administrator gets to know about it - so it can't be something just useful for me...

I've now decided flagging is not what I hoped it was and is a Bad Thing To Have Done To A Good Post (oops - sorry Leonie). Anyone know how I undo it?

I agree with Chris' point that the organisational mode for free software development and open access collaboration has developed in the context of virtual collaboration and so is a kind of 'natural' starting point, but also agree that it needs adaptation for wider use in social change organising.

Like Chris, I have also found that one of the most challenging barriers to effective online collaborative organisation is resistance from those well-placed in existing heirarchies. However, my experience of free software social change collaboration is that it can develop the converse 'tyranny of structurelessness' (http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) -- particularly if there is lack of parity in resources and cultural capital.

If one is genuinely committed to using 'web 2' for social change, the organisational issues become complex and often challenging. FLOSS is a sound stepping-off point but I don't think one can develop any 'one-size-fits-all' model for the VCS.

I think the Web2.0 model is just what NPOs ordered for the future of engagement. But Web2.0 needn't be just what we see in Flickr, Twittr, Facebook et al. I hear a lot of advice going to NPOs that recommend using those tools as their entree to Web2.0, but I think that is misguided. By forcing NPOs to use non-NPO specific tools we run the risk moving the adoption horizon further away. My belief is that we need Web2.0 tools optimized for NPO models in order for them to be more quickly justified and accepted in the NPO community. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir though...thoughts anyone? jl

Wow Marc, thanks for for your comments and for the link to your videos. While your post seems to indicate you think our positions are opposed, I don't see it that way. I've never been an advocate to push technology for technology's sake, in fact my focus has always been for judicious use of technology to complement and further organizational goals, with well thought out metrics to create a self-improvement feedback loops. But then again I'm a newbie in this group, so no one knows that :-)

Your points are all well taken - new technology tempts the forward edge of the bell curve to jump right in. Then a small percentage gets great results and a bunch don't. Then we look at the winners and wonder if the success can be systematized and extended to other organizations in a consistent way.

Strategic planning and goal understanding is is important for sure, and consultants in the industry are well suited to walk organizations though all that. But as you state in your videos, there needs to be an underlying non ego-protecting mindset that values risk taking and failure acceptance. While I'd rather work and I seek out the more open-minded organizations, all organizations aren't like that. What we need are tools that don't depend on that mindset but that can help all those great causes out there.

What I'm advocating are Web tools focused at core needs (read center of bell curve) of NPOs (CMS, email, etc) with integrated Web2.0 to support the community and the longevity of the support base (community building, photo sharing, meetup, degrees of separation reduction, mob coordination, multichannel communication and on and on.) With value that can expressed despite where the organization stands on the open/closed mindset - jl

I'm confused about web 2.0 – but perhaps my confusion is in itself relevant.

When I first heard the term web 2.0 I thought the difference related to how the Internet is used – rather than specific tools. I thought web 1.0 was top down and 2.0 was social and collaborative. For instance, to me the Internet was my “informal university” but at first my experience was very top down, accessing information, it was as if I was only allowed to borrow books from the library. Then I discovered various "communities of interest", where I was included in the learning community at my "university" and it stopped being top down.

A time came when I needed some specific help in learning and teaching something. I was asked to do an introductory ICT course for some teachers in rural Nigeria. I was determined to make it relevant and participative, and wanted to update my knowledge, so I set up a yahoo group to help me prepare the course. Members of the group offered suggestions and developed a wiki for me (a kind of “information cupboard” for me to use when I went to deliver the course). I introduced the Nigerian course participants to the Internet, and they joined the yahoo group (Teachers Talking) and were delighted to find people in that group, in far away countries, waiting to exchange emails with them.

Teachers Talking (TT) has been through various transformations since then, and we have used various tools to enable a continuing “rubbing of minds” through the Internet. I am a kind of information hub sometimes in UK, sometimes in Africa. As I travel physically between the UK (and my “bandwidth-rich” contacts here) and rural Nigeria or Kenya (and my “bandwidth-challenged/poor/starved' contacts there) I try to figure out the best ways to keep us all working together. Anything that helps us to collaborate effectively, to share information easily, and to learn and think together, is what I think of as Web 2.0.

It seems I have been over simplistic. I thought web 1.0 was top down, and web 2.0 was “straight across” equal exchange. I kept hearing Web 2.0 terms like social networking, and thought “yes that's us” - regularly linking across continents to get on and do things collaboratively that we could not have done before the Internet existed. I thought Web 2.0 = “the Internet enabling the development and routine use of social networking in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago” but now I think I am wrong in that. It seems there are only certain things which do count as Web 2.0, like Facebook (and other things mentioned in the discussion so far) but probably a lot of the things I value and use for regular and effective Internet enabled collaboration with my “social network” in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa simply don't count as Web 2.0 - I probably need to go back to lurking and trying to get less confused ;-)

Wow, we seem to have a whole load of different threads going now! I'd like to try to separate some of these out.

1) There is a debate about the capacity of organisations to utilise tools and services that are already out there - both user skills and strategic decision making skills, and how these may be enhanced.

2) there is a discussion about stimulating innovation and risk taking in organisations.

But I want to concentrate on a third area:

We have the question about NPO / NGO specific tools and toolsets. John Lara, Marc & others seem to agree that this is a direction that can seduce funders down dead end routes. A lot of good solutions are already available from the open-source world. There may be some activities and tasks that are specific to the non-profit sector (my favourite example is the accounting problem of moving expenditure around between budgets so that you get the maximum impact, without breaking any of the ultra-vires rules set by funders). But if the sector needs sector specific tools, each of these needs a specific business case, and the idea that the sector needs its own complete suite of web 2.0 tools looks like a mistake.

But there is something that is not about the specific tools, but about the on-line places and spaces. It is clear that the sector needs places to meet and talk with ourselves and share experiences. Whether it's a mailing lists like UKRiders or pradsa@googlegroups.com or discussion sites like here (www.technologyandsocialaction.org), or social networking sites (free.schoolofeverthing.org, change.org, gaia.org, unltdworld.org). These can be built on standard platforms.

Then there is a debate about providers.
We must always be clear that Flickr, Twitter, googledocs and all those other useful things are NOT FREE! There is a price to pay in information / advertising bandwidth / etc. and we need to understand it. We also need to think about how we want the world to develop in the next 10 / 20 / 50 years. The major IT providers like Microsoft already have very significant influence in national and international policy making. Bill Gates & Rupert Murdoch get invited to Davos more often than any of us. Google is not a democracy nor is it a public service. How much power are we prepared to cede to these big corporations to make our lives just a little easier? Do we really want to 'speak the truth to power' - in this case, we may want to say things that google/myspace/youtube/etc. may decide to censor (if not now, then in the future).

We always need to protect and develop independent platforms. This is a strong argument for supporting initiatives to provide NPO specific services based on open-source platforms. These kinds of initiative should be seen as equivalent to the network of voluntary sector infrastructure organisations.

So I would argue that, although we might not need NPO specific technologies, we may need NPO owned and operated open-source web 2.0 services.

Andy - Thanks for teasing this out a bit. As tomorrow is the last day I'm on the Hotseat, I'll take what you started a step further and do a post tomorrow morning to frame the different threads that emerged, both organically and not. Hopefully it'll provide a well formed list of topics for forthcoming conferences, workshops, online discussions, etc.

Wish me luck!

Thanks Andy and John for your encouragement – I will take it as an invitation to tell you what I do and what I use at the moment and to share some dreams. (I won't add why we do things, where people are, and what information we are exchanging – because simply explaining what we do will be rather long. I won't even try to explain who “we” refers to. I am in the UK and I link up with different people in different circumstances – especially in rural Nigeria and Kenya.)

On Wednesdays I have an e-meeting using yahoo conferencing for about an hour. We work to a prepared agenda. Sometimes we circulate a discussion document beforehand. We use google docs for that. It goes the round with people adding comments in their chosen personal colour. We also communicate via email, but not using ordinary emails. We send emails through our virtual offices. We are developing virtual offices, where we can keep all the documents related to a specific project handy for everyone involved.

We are using Moodle for our virtual offices at present because, when we started to construct virtual offices, we already had Moodle to hand. We had experimented with it in connection with some course development and delivery, and understood how to arrange information and people in various ways there. Each "course" is an "office" and each "topic" is a "desk/filing drawer". We have "the usual way" of organising an office so that if you know your way round one you can easily function in another.

We use Moodle forums for our emails. We are still experimenting with that - deciding which information should be pushed out to people, and which information they simply need to be able to access at their convenience. Pushing everything creates too much noise – but it does give a good idea of who is busy with what and when. If you work alone it's quite encouraging to know that others have come in to work on their stuff too (and to sometimes take a shared virtual tea-break/kunu-break/water-cooler-break for an instant messaging catch up on the human side of working together as well).

We have had our virtual offices long enough now to have a good idea of how we like to work in them and what benefits they give us. Now we are looking again at what we do and seeing how conveniently Moodle can and can't achieve what we want. We have started to ask questions to find out what we should really be using. Apparently we need a "knowledge management system" and it might be Drupal.

We need website development too. We've been using blogs for ages as a "temporary fix", and now we are exploring the google website facility. However I saw mention of Drupal making website updates easy, so we probably need to explore that too.

By the way, we came to Moodle via a wiki, and to the wiki via a yahoo group. The yahoo group was generating useful content. The content needed to be collected up in way that would be easier for our people to find. The wiki was okay in a way for that, but we needed more structure. I think wikis are fine in their way (though cumbersome - but perhaps they are improving over time). It is useful that various people can put stuff into a wiki, and anyone who knows what they are looking for can get it out again. However a wiki did not really suit our needs. We needed something more structured, where particular people would find exactly what they needed ready prepared for them.

Another regular online group meeting facility I use is the Minciu Sodas chatroom. I lead a regular monthly discussion group there (13.00 GMT First Thursdays) connected to Learning From Each Other (LFEO). LFEO is a yahoo group which I lead within Minciu Sodas. Some of you may remember Minciu Sodas as the “home” of Pyramid of Peace (PoP) – the Internet and mobile phone initiative that grew up in response to post election turmoil in Kenya. We are about to start discussing Mohammed Yunus' book "Creating a World Without Poverty". We are currently circulating, in Kenya, six copies of the book, via PoP. Other people within LFEO have got copies, and a couple of excerpts from the book have been posted to LFEO. I'd like to experiment with capturing various aspects of that discussion for those who can't get to the chats (perhaps to share via Moodle) but that's just an idea for the moment - unless anyone knows anyone with time/money/interest to make it happen.

I use Skype a lot and have experimented with audiographic conferencing and want to take that further (I particularly like the way that participants can “chat amongst themselves” while the main speaker is talking. Then the speaker can keep scanning back over the comments in order to pick up on participants real interests and adjust the ongoing presentation in response.)

I don't make informed decisions about what tools I should use. This is mainly because although it is fun and stimulating to work in trans-national, culturally mixed, virtual communities the downside is that there is no-one “at the next desk” to give suggestions and no IT dept or training dept to call on – so I stick with what is familiar until it simply won't do any more – or until an opportunity comes my way to learn something new in a simple way.

My dream is that we will get so good at using online discussion tools and all web 2.0 stuff that we will be able to “cut out the middle man” when it comes to consultations about poverty alleviation and rural development and such like. If you came to Nigeria or Kenya with me now I could introduce you to the people who I know, who could arrange for you to meet with representatives of whatever usually excluded social group you wanted to learn about or collaborate with. (I could probably help you in Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia too – and other places as well if I started asking around.)

Take that a step further, slightly improve what we are already doing, and you needn't bother to find your anti-malarials and get hot and dusty coming to Africa – you could meet those representatives online. Fast forward – and no policy decision or funding allocation should be made without the G8, or UNICEF, or whoever, first having online consultations with the local stakeholders – the people who are living with the problems – the real experts who should be the paid consultants. It's not that difficult. It only needs a bigger team, and some money, and some good local community development people who know how to help people to “have a voice”. It seems to me that all the bits and pieces are there, they just need bringing together. That way I believe we could really speed up all kinds of good things, including the achievement of some of the Millennium Development Goals.

Marc

I see you mentioned the site http://www.ushahidi.com/ which covers the post-election turmoil in Kenya. It includes some of the PoP intitiatives, such as item Reaching out to the Mungiki Naivasha Feb 1, 2008 Rachel and her team of Kikuyu peacemakers from Nairobi arrived in Naivasha at 11:30 am by public transport... and item Roadblocks removed after peace efforts Naivasha Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:09 am Rachel Wambui Kungu +254 721 626 389 is back in Nairobi, Kenya after a day ...

Connected to that I could also point you to the archive of the yahoo group emails leading up to that journey and to the chatroom meeting afterwards. We met there hoping for news of Rachel and the others getting back safely to Nairobi. They arrived and then we were all waiting for news of a truck load of displaced people who were travelling in the hope that the agreement to lift the road block would hold - it did - they got through safely.

On behalf of Pradsa folk I'd like to thank Marc for his extraordinary efforts in hosting, facilitating and summarising this hotseat. a wonderful example of dynamic online practice. I'm aware that there are other folk like myself who've not been able to participate as frequently and in the depth we would've liked due to time demands. For this reason i anticipate that although Marc's actual hosting /facilitation ends, we'll keep this hotseat open for a few days longer, so some stragglers can still contribute. Once again, many thanks Marc, yours will be a hard hotseat to follow ;o)