Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category
“The Printing Press of the Digital Environment: A Conversation with Stanford’s Highwire Press.”
(interview of me by Adeline Koh, Professor at Richard Stockton College, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education’s “Profhacker” series).
“Our conversation touched upon issues such as how Highwire makes a distinction between itself and university presses, the open access debate to changes in the definition of “scholarly impact,” and what sorts of electronic data journals may be able to provide to individual authors. Present at the interview were Tim McCormick (@mccormicktim), Anh Bui and Laryssa Polika.
Quotes from Tim: ” ‘It is early days yet for digital publishing, and there are great areas of opportunity that are not yet well-defined or settled. We like to see scholars and authors being bold and experimentative, not just waiting for terms to be given to them. While it’s true that certain structures of academia, such as tenure criteria, may tend to operate conservatively, on the other hand change happens eventually, and we see many signs of impending change, even disruption.’
” ‘We would suggest that scholars…think entrepreneurially about the many ways they could publish and be recognized / rewarded for it.’”
read full article.
.
.
.
.
Healthier Information talk at Quantified Self, March 29, 2012
This is the video of my presentation at the meeting of the San Francisco (original) chapter of Quantified Self, March 29 at Google West Campus, Mountain View.
I discuss the informational value of phone calls from family members compared to television, and the interestingness of my cat and possible value of Rush Limbaugh, among other things. See the presentation slides on Slideshare.
The format of this was “ignite+”, which is a talk accompanied by 30 slides, shown for 15 seconds each, auto-advanced, which is 7.5 minutes, plus 7.5 minutes for Q&A. You have to start and finish exactly on time. (regular “ignite” format, also known as Pecha Kucha, is 20 slides, 20 seconds each. See also Wikipedia entry on Ignite.).
Note: I had difficulty getting this video (hosted on Vimeo) to play well. You may want to download the file, using links at bottom of the Vimeo page, and replay it once downloaded.
.
.
.
.
Welcome round 1 group!
A stellar group of 11 people were selected from those who replied to the “Twitterfunding Experiment: Call for Participants” last week. You have all kinds of great interests, backgrounds, and affiliations, and I’m delighted that you’ve joined this experiment.
Euan Adie 
Matt Stempeck 
emily bell 
Karen Wickre 
mrgunn 
Michael J. Coren 
Kandy Woodfield 
Jodi Schneider 
Dan Schultz 
katenieder 
Morgan Pintarich Welcome @stew, @emilybell, @kvox, @mrgunn, @mj_coren, @jess1ecat, @jschneider, @slifty, @mstem, @katenieder, & @morganpintarich. You are international (US, UK, Ireland), timezone-crossing (PST, EST, GMT), gender-balanced, and diverse in age and twitter experience, among other things.
.
Instructions:
1) You don’t really have to do *anything*, except possibly tell me your Paypal email address if you want to get paid at the end of the trial..
.
2) The trial will:
start: Monday, April 23, 12:00 am PST
end: Tuesday, May 22, 11:59pm PST
.
3) You each have $10 credit to start. I and my robot monkeys will watch your Twitter public activity during the trial, and count any of these ways in which you cite another member’s tweet:
- RT (as recorded by Twitter, or just designed by RT @<twittername>)
- favorited
- MT @<twittername>
- via @<twittername>
- HT @<twittername>
The intent is to observe and capture the ways people cite or credit others, to the extent feasible.
.
4) At the end of the trial, I will apportion your $10 among the other group members in proportion to how many of the above cites/uses you made of their tweets. (and do the same for everyone else). If you cite nobody, I’ll divide your credit equally among the others; if you cite only one person, I’ve give your $10 all to that person, etc.
(Note: this means that you can do whatever mixture of RT, MT, faving you choose – it’s effectively just your way of indicating how you want your credit distributed. RT- or faving a lot or a little doesn’t in a sense matter, in this setup, because you have the same credit to give out regardless.)
.
5) I set up a new Twitter account, @talkfunder, for news and notices about this project. I may cross-post there and at @mccormicktim for a bit.
.
6) At @talkfunder, there is a Twitter list for the group:
http://twitter.com/talkfunder/twitterfunding1
You or anyone can go here and see all posts by group members. This may be a more convenient alternative or supplement to reading group members’ posts via your regular tweetstream. Keep in mind that tweets may become unfindable via searches / lists in as little as a few days. Looking at specific user’s page, however, usually shows tweets going back many months.
7) Here and below are logo concepts for Talkfunder that my expensive branding agency came up with: +F, or alternately, T+ (imagine that “+” with a bit of an “f” head on it). You get the idea, I think? Like G+, or +1, or Twitter+. Thoughts?
.
8) Everything here is open for discussion and suggestion. Please feel free to send ideas and questions / issues to me directly, to the group by email, or by public posting, or by Op-Ed in the New York Times.
.
I have pretty much no idea what will happen now. Which is the idea.
.
.
.
.
Might people agree to pay and receive money based on their level of use/creation of social media? This is a small independent experiment to look at whether and how this might happen.
.
I. Overview
II. How It Works
III. Requirements
IV. Signup
V. Frequently Asked Questions
VI. Acknowledgements
.
I. Overview:
I’m looking for a group of, say, 10 trial participants to sign up to try it for a period (probably 1 month, I am aiming for May 1-31, 2012). If interested, add yourself to the signup list.
.
II. How it works:
- At the start, you are given an Initial Credit (expected to be $10) in a virtual account.
- During the trial period, we track how much you “favorite” and/or retweet other participants’ tweets.
- At the end of the month, we count up everyone’s favorites/retweets, and adjust everyone’s account balance in proportion to how many YOU received. If you got none, you might end with a balance of $0. If, on the other hand, you got all of the favorites/tweets, you’d get the whole pool of money, or about $100.
- You then get this money via Paypal. That’s it! Your reward for playing, thanks.
- Note: I realize there are various ways to use/credit tweets, such as RTs, HTs, paraphrases, etc. To simplify tracking, the trial will be based only on favoriting, so you would do that always for a tweet you want to credit, regardless of what other use / RT you make of it). [Update 4/11 8am: We're looking at which types of crediting/reuse can feasibly be tracked automatically].
.
III. Requirements:
- You must have been an active Twitter user for at least the last three months, and understand how to follow other users, how to “favorite” and RT (retweet), and how to view a user list’s members and tweets.
- You must be able to receive funds via a Paypal account.
- You agree that your favorites and other publicly visible activity on Twitter will be monitored by the trial organizer for the purpose of this experiment.
- Participants are selected by trial organizer at his sole discretion. I am looking for a group of people who might have a relatively well-distributed degree of interest in each others’ activity, and whom I think are likely to yield useful feedback and data.
happy participants will make this project fly!
.
IV. Signup List:
Actual signup list (requires Google account to edit document).
.
.
V. Frequently Asked Questions:
- Q: WTF?
A: I know, right?!
. - Q: Who are you, anyway?:
A: Tim McCormick, I work as Product Manager for Emerging Content at Stanford HighWire Press in Palo Alto, CA. This is just an independent project for personal interest.
this picture is not me, it’s of course Noam Chomsky. But we think he’d approve of this project.
. - Q: But what problem does this solve? Why would a system like this be necessary? Doesn’t Twitter work fine already?
A: Yes, Twitter works now, this may not be necessary. But, on the other hand, perhaps interesting things may happen if you introduce a funding / royalties sort of mechanism, and it may be easier to try it out than to predict what would happen. This is just a small cheap experiment to do that, following Eric Ries’ model of “Build, Measure, Learn, Repeat.”
. - Q: Hasn’t this been tried before?
A: Yes, there are many precedents, starting with any system of voluntary support for media — e.g. the U.S. public radio model. (Think of Twitter now as analogous to there being no way to give financial support to the local public radio station you enjoy. How would the NPR crowd even know who they are?).
.
On the Web, there is for example Wikipedia’s campaigns, and many other projects that have used so-called “tip jar” protocol, or what are sometimes called “street performer”, “threshhold pledge,” or “fund and release” protocols.
.s
The idea of apportioning funds for media automatically based on third-party monitoring is also quite old — going back at least a century in U.S. copyright law & practice, and providing the basis for royalties systems such as ASCAP.
.
There have also been zillions of different efforts and models to monetize Web content in the last 20 years, using just about any imaginable variation on advertising, referral credit, traffic monitoring, apportionment of aggregated subscription revenues, etc.
.
Perhaps the most direct precedent is Kachingle (thank you @emilybell for pointing this out) which employs a model of monitoring enrolled users’ visits to Web sites in the network, and distributing voluntarily pledged funds to the site owners based on usage. Also quite similar to this is Flattr (thanks for @jschneider for tip on this). Both of these, as far I understand them, are essentially for crowd-funding Web sites as a whole, not really for social-media activity as in this experiment. .
.
While Web “tip-jar media” may generally be seen as having had little adoption, there are some interesting new properties about Twitter that might allow different phenomena to emerge. In particular, Twitter is a relatively transparent 2-way linking system, with much usage behavior publicly visible by default and efficiently monitorable by third parties.
. - Q: Why would anyone voluntarily give money for what’s currently free on Twitter?
A: First, for the reasons that anyone voluntarily donates to anything: because they value it and want to support it and want to express and demonstrate their values. Second, because they may want to encourage an experiment in radically distributed yet monetized media, and provide incentives for new value-creators in this medium. Third, who knows? maybe they won’t. That’s why we’re experimenting and not, say, burning huge piles of cash to try this out as an actual company. Yet.
[update 4/12 10pm: several participants voluntarily offered to put in money. Ok, they're my friends / associates, so perhaps crazy unrepresentative. But it happened. See F.A.Q. #9 below].
. - Q: but I use another social-media site to “favorite” and share stuff, like Facebook, Vimeo, Pinterest, Weibo, MyFunnyPoodles, or, oh, what was that one Google thing? Can I do it there?
A: Not yet. This social-funding concept is quite possibly extensible to many other social-media systems, but so far we’re just testing the concept on the easiest / most familiar system for us, Twitter. [update 4/12/12 2:30pm: @mrgunn has suggested a way to add Facebook & G+, considering it for this or possible next round].
. - Q: Are there other related, clever terms you want to coin regarding this?
A: Yes. Here goes one: Tweetfunding is a system somewhat like royalties for media, except it’s peer-to-peer so we call it a socialties system. (If this term mostly falls flat or incurs scorn — you know who you are — well that’s why blog posts are editable, down it goes and let’s move on, children are starving).
. - Q: I want to support / buy / invest in / hire / you / this.
A: Great — run, don’t walk. Instagram sold for $1B: 12 people and no revenue? I’m just saying. My contact info is at top.
. - Q: wouldn’t it be better if I paid you the starting money, rather than getting the credit? May I do that?
A: Yes, I accept money. You can Paypal me using this email address: paypal at tjm dot org. This is about learning, but I can work with money. As Schleiermacher said, I’m not one of those cultured despisers (see: NPR crowd, haters), and it’s like that New Yorker cartoon where a guy goes to a bar and orders “vodka on the rocks, in the rocks, and under the rocks” — I can use it.
.
No, seriously, originally I planned to just give credits and put in the funding myself — ok the VCs’ money, suckas — thinking it necessary to incent participation (and because the basic idea is voluntary funding, and I imagine most users in any larger system on this model would be recipients and not funders). However, since several people offered to put in their own money, I’ve decided to allow that, to add some new dynamics to the experiment for observation, and so I can go to that great Cuban place for dinner tomorrow to think all this over.
.
VI. Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
- Emily Bell, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University, for feedback and discussion of Kachingle. @emilybell
- William Gunn of Mendeley, for feedback and ideas. @mrgunn.
- Kate Niederhoffer of Knowable Research for discussions. @katenieder.
- Jason Priem of UNC-Chapel Hill and Total-Impact.org, for feedback and ideas. @jasonpriem.
- Jodi Schneider of Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), Galway, for ideas on all things discussion and argumentation, and for tip about social-funding service Flattr.
- Barry Wellman, University of Toronto, for helping to circulate the idea for discussion. @barrywellman.
- Karen Wickre, editorial director at Twitter, for feedback. @kvox.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tues April 10, 4:15pm lecture: “Planned Obsolescence and the Future of Peer Review.”
Weds April 11, 12:00pm discussion: “The Digital Future of the Profession.”
Pigott Hall, Rm 260-252, Stanford University. map
.
Speaker
Kathleen Fitzpatrick is Director of Scholarly Communication at the Modern Language Association, and is on leave from a position as Professor of Media Studies at Pomona College, in Claremont, California. She is the author of Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy, which was published by NYU Press in November 2011; Planned Obsolescence was released in draft form for open peer review in fall 2009. She is also the author of The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television, published in 2006 by Vanderbilt University Press, and she is co-founder of the digital scholarly network MediaCommons. She has published articles and notes in journals including the Journal of Electronic Publishing, PMLA, Contemporary Literature, and Cinema Journal.
Location:
Stanford University – Pigott Hall, Rm 260-252 (aka Building 260, aka Language Corner, at SE corner of Main Quad, corner of Escondido Mall and Lausen Mall),
Map: http://bit.ly/HvqF1Z
Sponsored by
Stanford Humanities
Event hashtag: #kfitztalk
(use for your tweets, posts, photos, & other media coverage)
.
.
.
My Day of DH (Digital Humanities) might be said to have begun around midnight last night, when I got a tweet from Twitter friend Adeline Koh @adelinekoh of Richard Stockton College, who said:
hey r u signed up for #dayofdh ?? Do it…
I had been only vaguely aware of Day of DH until then, but since I do whatever Adeline says, I went and checked it out and signed up. I read Adeline’s post about Day of DH, in which she relates a Twitter chat between her, me, and Rosemary Feal in which we talked about, as she put it, “What principle are you?” (e.g. Shirky Principle, after Clay Shirky). She suggested it would be some kind of “uncertainty principle” (alluding to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle from physics, I think), and I added that, thinking of Keats’ “negative capability”, we might propose a Koh Certainty Principle, meaning confidence through accepting doubt. Ok, this is some serious nerd backchannel, but good academic fun, and a moment where I stopped and thought, how remarkable it is that networks exist, and that I have constant and rich interactions with so many scholars and creators of all kinds, few of whom I’ve ever met in person or perhaps ever will.
Later I read all the prior registrants’ submissions in answer to “What is Digital Humanities”, which was quite entertaining, nice example of the diversity and wit and intelligence of this community.
Today was an unusual work-from-home day, consisting of several conference calls and various emails / docs / Web research on assorted projects for my job at HighWire Press, Stanford. I am product manager for “emerging content”, which includes eBooks, APIs, Semantic technologies, personalization/recommendation, and social media.
At lunchtime I went out for a coffee on University Ave., where as usual at the tables around me were students mostly with laptops, some also or instead with novels, essays, course packs, law & medical texts. Also, the usual tech / startup types peering intently into laptops or clustered around a sketch, diagram, or marketing document. All kinds of “content,” format, and device, old and new, all mixed up.
While having coffee I noticed a number of people in my tweetstream were using a hashtag “#dsevent”, so I followed the tag and looked up what it was, and found it was an event going on in London right then, called “Inventing the Future”, organized by a company I follow called Digital Science. DS is a spinoff of Nature Publishing Group that develops and invests in new technologies for researchers. I follow many companies and projects in that area, often with a thought for how STM (Scientific Technical Medical) research developments may also apply or be informed by what’s going on in Digital Humanities. Both of these areas, and others, in the scholarly world, are in an amazing state of creative ferment, but I find that STM and DH worlds seem to often operate quite separately, sometimes unaware of quite parallel developments in the other area.
Since HighWire serves publishers and journals that span all disciplines (1600+ journals, + ebooks and other content), I have an opportunity to be involved in both STM and DH publishing and conversations. Important customers such as Duke University Press and Oxford University Press have large presences in humanities and/or social sciences, and they are very exploratory regarding new publishing tools and models. I see DH as an area where creative reinvention is occuring partly out of dire necessity, i.e. a perceived state of breakdown in the scholarly monograph sector and (relatedly) the traditional tenure track. For me, areas with a sense of crisis and disruption are areas with possibly the most interesting problems to tackle and greatest opportunities.
After coffee, I headed over to campus to pick up a book I’d requested from the School of Business Library, after getting an email alert that it was available. As I walked back from the library, I nursed the slight remaining charge on my phone, and cradled the book under my jacket against the light rain, reflecting on how each media/device was showing its own vulnerability, and coexisting in my life, a mixed and serendipitous life and surely a unique time.
I’m going to give an “ignite+” talk (7.5 min presentation + 7.5 min Q&A) at the March 28 meeting of the Silicon Valley “Quantified Self” group, 120 people, at Google HQ West Campus in Mountain View. Below are a few slide images from draft version, final version here. Please send me any feedback or ideas.
 |
|||||||||||||
| From Semantic Graph to Rich Reading Path | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Ok, new in town, got apartment, car, job. What next? Local library card, of course. So today I went to the downtown branch of the Palo Alto City Library, a short walk away from me on Hamilton St., and did my usual “mystery shopper” routine of wandering in, pretending to know nothing, and asking about services and how to get a card. (have done this in a swathe of cities..).
Palo Alto Downtown Library
The Palo Alto Downtown Library, as it’s usually known, is a delightful facility. It opened in 1971, designed by William Busse, and was renovated and rededicated in 2011. Originally, it featured the wrought-iron gates saved from the city’s original, 1905, Carnegie-funded public library that sat across the street, where the 1960s high-rise City Hall now stands. According to Palo Alto Patch, the Carnegie building gates “proved too heavy and awkward for patrons, so they were removed.” Ok, I understand, it may not have been so user- or kid- or elderly- or handicapped-friendly, but I kind of wish I could have the gravitas and historical experience of pulling open those doors when I went.
The present building I would describe as a subtle and effective melding of influences including Asian, Mission, and Californian Modern. An East Asian aspect is suggested by the flowering trees and the enclosed garden spaces between the outer walls and the building proper, which have a meditative and considered quality in themselves, and also lend serenity to the glass-walled library interior spaces facing onto them. The plastered and curved exterior sheltering wall suggests Mission, while the prominent horizontal wooden beams and the entraceway trellis speak more of California modern.
photo by Kathy S., Palo Alto, on Yelp.com
The comparatively blank outer walls at street line, curving in to the recessed and shaded entrace, to me articulate a sophisticated type of welcome to the visitor — receptive but not overt, the demeanor of the sort of person I would like to meet. Considering buildings from the standpoint of how they talk to the street, I really like the Downtown Library’s refined manners.
Palo Alto Post Office
This weekend I stopped in to the downtown Palo Alto post office, which is a lovely Mission / Spanish Revival building from the 1920s. (see note on history below).
I had the idea of requesting a PO Box there, as it would be useful to have this as an address and it would be enjoyable to stop in to this building regularly. However, I have learned that the USPS has just announced plans to sell the building and relocate this year. The article notes that a nearby 4-story building recently sold for “an astounding $64 million, or $900 per square foot.”
The New York Times recently had a fascinating story about Deutsch Post, a now ultra-efficient and thriving global competitor born out of the former German post office (Deutsch Bundespost): “Reinventing Post Offices in a Digital World.” DP and its bright-yellow identity is known to Americans via its global package-delivery arm, DHL.
Deutsche Post has sold off all but 2-3 off the once 29,000+ buildings it owned, and usually operates inside other business such as banks or groceries, or in some villages, out of the homes of franchisees.
Deutsche Post branch/store, and kiosk, Berlin
The contrast with the hidebound, collapsing US Postal Service is obvious. Clearly, something like what Deutsche Post has done is, economically, the way to go, to maintain the USPS; but the case of the Palo Alto landmark which I won’t in future get to visit regularly — with all the sense of civic uplift it might help inculcate — shows what may be lost when public buildings are sold off. All over the country, civic landmarks are being and will be sold off, many never to be stepped foot in by the public again.
History / architecture note
The Palo Alto post office was designed by a significant local architect, Birge M. Clark, whose father Arthur Clark was also an architect, Stanford Professor and mayor of Mayfield (Mayfield is the town that was absorbed into Palo Alto in the 1920s, whose old main street and train stop are the California Ave and Caltrain stop of today, near Hotel California).
A longtime friend of Herbert Hoover, Arthur Clark constructed the future U.S. president’s home in 1919 with assistance from young Birge.
grey 2010 Jetta S
I have to say, going to California, Silicon Valley, new job, all important; but buying a first car: pivotal.
Although, a lot of cars seem to me quite competently designed but undistinguished, or only subtly so. Older Jettas had a more distinct, angular style, but current ones like my grey 2010 Jetta S are quite similar to a swathe of other models from Detroit, Japan, even to many more expensive cars like Benzes and those often-tame Japanese luxury sedans.
On the other hand, for me, as an honorary Brit and expert introvert, avoiding distinction and statement is a key criteria. Self-expression via my car? That, for me, veers perilously close to arriviste, even gauche.
Volkwagen was originally called the KdF-Wagen” (German: Kraft durch Freude – “strength through joy”)
Therefore, subtle elements like brand penumbra, history, personal association, and detailing matter a lot. This is why, for all that this depends on great engineers, marketers are in the drivers seat. In the developed world now, cars are so ubiquitous, so generally well-engineered and based on extremely mature core technologies — are so functionally equivalent for most people — that, I think, most money over $10,000 that anyone spends on a new car is almost purely to be won by marketing and identity. Subtle and repressed identity, perhaps masked by practical sentiments (“we need it for the kids”… “safety and reliability are key features to me”…) but identity nonetheless.
If you also consider the evidence showing that most people buy cars soon after deciding to enter the market, with very little research, then you realize that cars, while being high engineering at base, are in fact mainly a huge and lucrative field of identity expression. In fact, the more the brand talks about engineering (BMW, e.g.), the more it’s likely to be about identity.
Taking me, for example, let’s take a tour of that fertile field the marketers, not the engineers, have to plough. My father once owned a Model A Ford, which along with the Model T was the American “people’s car” designed to be affordable to all workers. This was precisely the same goal of the (*cough* Nazi) German Labour Front, starting in 1937, for what was originally called the KdF-Wagen” (German: Kraft durch Freude – “strength through joy” — the name of the giant state-controlled leisure organization in Nazi Germany) and then Volkswagen, “people’s car.” (a term used in Germany as far back as the 1920s).
When the VW operation was about to be dismantled after WWII under the “pastoralization” policy, pre-Marshall Plan, VW was saved by an enterprising British Army overseer who arranged to start selling VW trucks to the occuping forces and the German postal service, and some returning UK soldiers were allowed to bring their VW Beetles back to England after the war, thus seeding the market.
BMW 2002, dark green like our one
My father subsequently owned a Beetle, and my parents a VW hatchback, and further on the German front, in England I grew up riding around in our wonderful, classic BMW 2002. (a practical, good-quality car in Europe, not so much the status symbol that BMW is in the US, I’ve often told people).
All this no doubt is part of why I tend to like German cars. For a design and book devotee like me, Germany is also importantly the homeland of Gutenberg, the Bauhaus and Modern design / typography, and the Frankfurt Book Fair. So too, I’m pleased to learn — as someone who flatters himself as a trans-Atlantic type, and is a dual U.S. / E.U. citizen — that the name “Jetta” comes from the German term for the Atlantic jet stream, as in the “winds of freedom blow” (Martin Luther’s Die Luft der Freiheit weht, Stanford’s motto) between Europe and America.
It can’t hurt, either, that Volkswagen group also includes Audi, Porsche, and Lamborghini, some of my favorite other marqees. (if I were the type to reach, as the British say condemningly, I might even say that I think of my Jetta as really an entry-level Audi. In sheep’s clothing — or more sheepish clothing, as the case may be). Bearing in mind that in my new environs of Silicon Valley, a nearly-new Jetta (which I think of as fabulous, unimaginable and nearly embarrassing luxury, any moment to be found out, confiscated, and me thrown back in jail) — here counts as practically a junker, a just-out-of-college throwaway car, or something you drive to impress upon your investors that you’re truly a bare bones, “skin-in-the-game” startup type. A 2010 Jetta is far cheaper than the average car on the road here, as my car-insurance broker told me, with a sympathetic and perhaps pitying nod, while selling me collision insurance.
The Volkswagen campaign for my sentiments really took off in the 1950s, however, when VW began its extraordinary run of game-changing, highly effective counter-cultural U.S. marketing, with the print campaigns designed by Doyle Dane Burnbach.
The 1959 Think Small series of advertisements, a famous example of which is at left, were revolutionary for their compelling graphic modesty, counter-intuitive message, and sometimes leaving off brand, logo, and product description entirely. It was voted the No. 1 campaign of all time in Advertising Age’s 1999 The Century of Advertising.[3
Apple "Think different" ads
Never mind that a 2010 Jetta is hardly small by world standards, and if you look at it in the context of the whole VW range you see it’s a “family sedan”, far up the list above the smaller-footprint categories of City Car, Super Mini, Mini, small sedan, etc. Volkswagen reached out to those uncomfortable with “Big” America, chafing at that Whitman-esque “barbaric yawp” and raw power, and invited us in to the Think clubhouse. (connecting to the original IBM “Think” slogan dating from the 1910s, but even more importantly, to Apple’s later “Think different,” which derived from “Think small” all the way down to the lower-case capitalization of “different”). VW was a pre-Steve Jobs version of Apple.
VW "VDub" parody ad, 2006 - click to play
A more recent example of counter-cultural marketing by Volkswagen that totally worked for me is their VDub advertising campaign from 2006, three TV ads parodying MTV’s auto show Pimp My Ride. Each stars an effete German engineer named Wolfgang, and German model Zonja Wöstendiek as his assistant Miss Helga, who mock the hip-hop wannabees’ absurdly vain hot-rods, and gleefully destroy them, to introduce a gleaming and trim VW GTI. Awesome! Those pimp-my-ride jerks who used to push us around on the playground, now we get to destroy their wide-boy blaring-exhaust tail-finned customized abominations!
(those which Tom Wolfe satirized in his landmark 1963 Esquire “New Journalism” essay, “There Goes (Varoom! Varoom!) That Kandy-Kolored (Thphhhhhh!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (Rahghhh!) Around the Bend (Brummmmmmmmmmmmmmm)…”, title essay of The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby).
But counter-cultural politics aside, the true ace-in-the-hole and deal-clincher for the 2010 Jetta, its Unique Selling Proposition (thank you, friends in Marketing) is, for sure, the hubcap typography.
VW was already way out ahead with its general logo, which cleverly stacks the V and W into a the type of old-style center-crossed “W” beloved to typography buffs everywhere, and joins the power of a circle to dynamic zagging diagonals. (Benz, the trinity? Lexus? yawn). Note the center-crossed “W” in the icon of one of our most potent New Economy symbols, Wikipedia:
2010 Jetta hubcaps (right): win for best typography
Now notice the play of “V”s and “W”s contained in the hubcap specific to (as far as I’ve seen) the 2010 Jetta, at left. Genius. Natural. Totally unnnoted by most people, but also highly distinctive when you finally see it. (like me! I’m just kidding. That’s just what what most people feel).
In sum, I may be a shameless capitalist tool and a pawn of advertising masterminds. But, so far as I could see, in the brief time I had to research my purchase, there were a dozen manufacturers out there in a fiercely competitive market, making quite well-designed, quite similar cars at a similar price, similar fuel economy and safety rating etc, using highly mature technologies. Time is short, research is hard, they all seem satisfactory. What am I going to do? I’m going to enjoy myself by swimming in the fertile sea of emotional / cultural associations around cars, because that’s what I’m really buying, not a car itself — that’s the real value in it for me. I’m going make some little statement, subtle — but for me all-important — about the Model A Ford that was my father’s first car, and the value I place on, say, good typography.
——–
Addendum (1/15/12 9pm):
My father observes that, not only did I ride around in that BMW 2002 when growing up, but I worked hard and lovingly to maintain it, as shown in this picture he sent, from circa 1979.
My two sisters, on the other hand, the soul of indifference as seen in background skipping rope or something, now drive a Subaru and a Toyota. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Parents, you have a solemn responsibility: instill good brand preferences in your children by age five, or it could be game over.
Thanks pops. Super Dad and, clearly, German auto industry brand ambassador #1.
Comments? email tim (at) tjm.org, or Twitter @mccormicktim. Due to spam problems, comments entered below will be delayed for approval.
Cambridge, naturally
“What Is College For?” Notre Dame philosophy professor Gary Gutting recently asked, in the NYT. Answer: basically, it’s for ideas.
Gutting’s article was interesting to me as perhaps one of the purest examples of “Ivory Tower” thinking I’ve ever seen. Interesting, perhaps disturbing, and finally unconvincing.
His evidence for the value of college to students is… self-reported student findings that, e.g., college was “very useful in helping them grow intellectually.” Of course, almost anything that a person might do between the ages of 18 and 22 could be useful in helping them grow intellectually — talk to anyone who’s travelled abroad, gone to work in their uncle’s business, or done national service – and it’s hardly surprising that after years of being told that this is the purpose of their family’s huge investment, students tend to report back the observation.
His thesis is that “the raison d’être of a college is to nourish a world of intellectual culture; that is, a world of ideas, dedicated to what we can know scientifically, understand humanistically, or express artistically.”
Well, that’s interesting. According to whom, or what? He cites no previous thinker, no historical evidence, no particular cognizance of the history of education even. Then, he makes the amazing claim that “this world [of intellectual culture] “is mainly populated by members of college faculties: scientists, humanists, social scientists…and those who study the fine arts.” This is so fact-free as to be hardly worth rebutting. What about the majority of scientists, who work for governments, pure research institutes, in health/medicine, or in industry? Or the entire media world, which is primarily non-academic? Technology, a radical transformative force in matters intellectual and otherwise, and mostly a non-academic phenonomen, is likewise written off.
Even accepting Gutting’s claim, you wouldn’t know from his remarks that there is a vigorous and useful debate going on about how you might detect and measure this “intellectual culture” impact of academia. Does Gutting think that the citizens and governments of the world are going to keep forking over trillions just on the strength of an airy claim? I’d hope not, and I’d hope that he’d hope not, if he believes in critical inquiry.
In the UK, the Higher Education Funding Council’s proposed 2009 Research Excellence Framework (REF) sparked extensive debate about impact of research, a useful compendium of which debate is gathered at “The Danger of Assessing Research by Economic Impact” by Prof. Leslie Ann Goldberg of Univ. Liverpool, Computer Science.
In the US, a narrower but lively debate has recently attended the work of Mark Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and affiliate of the DC-based Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Based on analysis of research activity in four mid-ranked US English departments, he argues that humanities “research” consumes a large portion of department resources while producing hardly any measurable impact, e.g. in citations of the research work. See “The Research Bust”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec 4, 2011.
Personally, I think the crucial larger story there is the increasingly threatened and shifting alliance between STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and non-STEM disciplines. While we still hear the ideal, exemplified by Gutting’s article, of the unified truth-seeking academy, in practice the pact has been crumbling for decades. It is fairly obvious that the research system of the STEM disciplines works differently than that of the humanities, being based on (or aspiring to, at least) distinct principles of falsifiable hypotheses and reproducible results, with clear pathways to technological application of discoveries. (or at least, aspires to these principles: see “Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results.” Wall Street Journal, Dec 2, 2011, on recent interesting results on widespread non-reproducibility).
The social sciences partake of this scientific/technical framework to a degree, and also have their distinct own realm of engagement in studying/shaping social policy; professional study such as law has, of course, its own self-evident rationale.
activity map of "humanities computing" from DigitalHumanities.org
That leaves the humanities, uneasily adrift between the truth metrics and justifications more solidly occupied by other disciplines. (with the upstart “digital humanities” energetically embracing science/technology methods, but not necessarily harbored with solid metrics or justifications. Also, often eschewing affiliation with the traditional humanities disciplines, as shown in this chart of the “extra-academic professions,” or what DH leading light Bethany Nowviskie @nowviskie of the University of Virginia calls “alt-academics”).
Yet, this complicated landscape is either outside or beneath the notice of Gutting’s “What is College For?”, which doesn’t present an argument, really. I would hardly even call it an ideal, because an ideal would be philosophically consistent and encompassing, rather than being parochially tied to a particular institution such as contemporary higher-ed. No, I would say Gutting’s view, at least as expressed in this article, is closer to mere ideology: that is, a set of beliefs constructed (consciously or not) by a group in order to promote and self-explain its socio-economic position. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but I don’t think it very effectively describes or defends higher education, or much exemplifies either philosophy or intellectual culture.
I look at the “fact checking” movement and recent partisan / political disputes over it, and suggest a need to go beyond principles of objectivity, and to embrace political strategy, learning theory, and empirical evidence about how to have impact. As recently commented by political organizer Biko Biker, the first rule of effectiveness is: meet people where they are.
It’s been a not-so-quiet few weeks in Lake Wobegon — the world of journalistic fact-checking, that is: the practice of examining news stories, politicians’ statements, etc., for factual accuracy. It’s familiar to many from the syndicated newspaper columns of Politifact, launched in 2007 (their Web site shown at left). It’s also done by other organizations such as AIM and FAIR, and TV news programs, and is joined by many related Web projects such as Hypothes.is, a proposed “peer review layer for the Internet,” and “Truth Goggles” from Dan Schultz at MIT.
The other week a major shot across the bow was fired by conservative magazine The Weekly Standard’s with its cover story, “Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’: The liberal media’s latest attempt to control the discourse” by Mark Hemingway. The title sums it up quite well, but basically Hemingway reviews the rise of fact-checking, rips apart a few choice Politifact and Associated Press fact-check pieces, and observes an overall liberal-Democratic agenda in the enterprise.
Over at NYU School of Journalism, however, wizened sage Jay Rosen had long seen it coming:
Told you to keep an eye on this for 2012. It’s here. The politicized attack on fact checking as–guess what?–politicized jr.ly/927s
— Jay Rosen(@jayrosen_nyu) December 11, 2011
Conversation ensued, around Rosen’s much-followed Twitter feed, including a followup from John McQuaid at Forbes: “How to Fix Fact Checking.” McQuaid argues that the Standard legitimately pointed out some definitely sloppy, biased Politifact and AP fact-checking, but the answer is just to do the job right:
[The Weekly Standard's piece] is basically an argument for endless epistemological war….In this scenario, nobody will ever know the “truth” because it cannot meaningfully exist until one side has defeated the other….
“The problem is that fact-checking – like everything – is sometimes a lazy, half-assed business. If fact-checking is as important as it claims, its practitioners need to acknowledge its problems and fix them.”
“Fix the problems,” McQuaid explains, means: “hard-nosed reporting and independent evaluation.”
Along similar lines, my friend Alec Macgillis writing in the The New Republic argues that “fact-checkers wouldn’t be needed if all of us journalists were more able, willing and empowered to do our jobs: to vet and explain political claims as they were being made.” I can’t help but feel this is essentially nostalgic: wishing for a day when there was (if there ever was) an ample supply of well-trained, well-resourced, well-respected professional reporters to give every topic its thorough, balanced, due. Here, I would have to to agree with Clay Shirky’s recent volley in the CJR “future of journalism” fray, “Institutions, Confidence, and the News Crisis” and say that this just isn’t a choice any more, that such a system is economically and technologically and politically past tense.
Even if there were an economic climate to support such a professional journalistic cadre deployed on every story, I think that today, it wouldn’t even assure success.
Why? Because man is a political animal, ours is a political world, and journalistic fact-checking must, like it or not, have a political strategy if it is to escape political neutralization.
So I claim.
Madison, Wisconsin, 2011 protests
This does not mean that fact-checking must have a political position. Rather, I think that proponents of fact-checking must recognize that if you want to influence public opinion, you have to prosecute the cause through the mechanisms of public opinion, and this IS fighting the good fight. Taking refuge in high principles of neutrality and independence may be dignified, but if it’s ineffectual, if you lose the war, it’s cold comfort. To be fair, fact-checking projects are doing much to increase their appeal and effectiveness, e.g. the humor of Politifact’s “pants on fire!” negative rating, or annual “worst liars” awards. But I’m not sure that many partisan boundaries are yet being crossed.
Do Politifact columns disproportionately critique Republicans? Perhaps your objective method objectively found greater incidence of falsehoods in Republican speeches, according to rigorous truth goggles software or peer review. It doesn’t really matter. If prevailing media, and most of the audience, might easily dismiss you by the fact that Politifact gives more lower grades to Republicans, say, then figure out a new angle that will be more effective in the war. Even patterns of who reads and cites your findings can be used as evidence of bias. [3]. Protesting your objectivity may do nothing to reach the unconverted.
A model for analyzing fact-checking projects — for impact, interaction, and topical foci — was recently shown by John Kelly of Morningside Analytics. His research, summarized by Ethan Zuckerman, shows that fact-checking sites differ significantly in what communities they reach, and how much they reach into different political territory. See also his fascinating visualization of the blog network Global Voices Online, with auto-classification of sources by topic focus, dot size to represent traffic volume, and graph of linking patterns between sites.
This is intriguing, but we might go a step further, and investigate how much fact-check information actually affects, or might affect, people’s understanding. Here we could look to cognitive science and learning theory’s findings/methods regarding how people revise/improve their understandings. These approaches might be entirely counter-intuitive, from the standpoint of traditional journalistic: e.g. might suggest giving less information or fewer source choices; or creating certain types of temporary confusion or dissonance or “meaning threat” (see Psychological Science paper PDF, or summary). Personally, I have a hunch that the greatest hope for building media that will change minds lies in personalized media, e.g. that would look for deficits in your reading matter / social graph and try to address them. There is some interesting research showing that many, if not necessarily a majority, of news readers actually express interest in and report higher satisfaction with such “balancing news,” but more on this point in later installments.
.
A play-book for fact-checking
I think it’s virtually impossible to depoliticize political media with pure fact-checking. The treachery of politics and public opinion will relentlessly undermine a too-idealistic enterprise, and merely presenting critiques doesn’t necessarily reach people or change their minds.
So, I’m starting a fact-checking play book. It embraces and extends what Rosen, McQuaid, and other experts have said:
- Don’t be sloppy, in any way, ever. It’s fatal.
- Continual self- and process examination. Never trust trust (see note #1 below).
- Realize that it’s not just about “facts”, it’s also about narratives and mythic/cognitive frames. One’s framing concepts of “factual” or “truthful” may not be the same as everyone’s. That doesn’t mean there is no objective reality, just that people understand reality through quite different frames, and you must think about how to communicate through those frames.
- “Meet people where they are.”
Fulfilling our own ideals and impressing people who think like us is seductive but insufficient. Perhaps focus might be shifted towards hard evidence of how much we are changing minds and crossing partisan / concept-cluster boundaries. For example, a) quantitative media analysis such as that cited by John Kelly, or b) cognitive science, learning theory, and personalization. - Accept that it’s a political project, even if, ironically, the point is to get “truth” out from under the politics. Ultimately, we’re not above it, and that’s ok. That’s our world.
.
——-
NOTES
1. I originally titled this post “Reflections on Fact-checking and Depoliticizing Politics”, alluding to a famous 1984 computer science paper, “Reflections on Trusting Trust,” by Ken Thompson. He demonstrates how even a simple computer program can be almost indetectably hiding a fatal bug, because a truly devious attacker can invisibly embed the bug or attack into the very tools used by the programmer. See the Wikipedia summary or the original paper. Ultimately, he suggests, security is a social process, of understanding and assessing the trust-worthiness of every party and tool you interact with, including yourself.
2. Overview of fact-checking. A history of the practice is under way by Lucas Graves, journalist and PhD student at Columbia.
3. Citation as evidence of bias.
What if some fact-check source is cited more often by liberal/Democratic members of Congress than by conservatives? Then it might easily be proved to be liberally biased, according to the methodology of the best-known scholar of news bias, UCLA’s Tim Groseclose, as explicated in the leading peer-reviewed journal Quarterly of Economics (PDF).
.
Agree? Missed something? Please send comments, suggestions to me at tim (at) tjm.org, or post on Twitter mentioning @mccormicktim, or comment on Facebook.
follow me on twitter: @mccormicktim
Elite Public High Schoolers, Predominantly Asian-American, sweep Siemens / Westinghouse Prizes
To survey the high schools of the 2011 Siemens Competition in Math, Science, & Technology winners (descendent of the former Westinghouse Science Talent Search) is to see American secondary, public education at its impressive peak. Polished web sites burst with notices of state champion teams, “Top Schools in Nation” awards from various publications, and arrays of courseware / e-learning tools to shame most universities. Curriculums are replete with Advanced Placement programs, wide-ranging foreign-language instruction, outstanding student newspapers, radio and TV stations, extensive performing arts programs, etc. To students in most of the world, including much of the U.S., these places would be almost hard to believe, educational paradises on earth, combining rigorous study, lavish facilities, and seemingly unlimited encouragement of diverse interests and creativity.
Remarkably, of the 16 high schools represented, only 1 is private (Horace Mann, in New York). However, most are either in highly affluent and educated districts (Palo Alto, Cupertino, Westport CT, John’s Creek GA) or are highly selective (Stuyvescent, LSMSA in Louisiana). Four schools are in the San Francisco area, four in the NYC area.
Asian-American students predominate, making up 4 of 6 individual winners (1st, 2nd,3rd, 5th) and 9 of 14 team winners. Exemplifying the trends, the top prize winner, Angela Zhang, attends the 72% Asian Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, California, one of the nation’s most affluent cities (and naturally, home of tech superpower Apple). A 2005 Wall Street Journal article claimed that Monta Vista was experiencing a “white flight” caused by White American families feeling overwhelmed by the academic focus of the school’s majority Asian American students, notes Wikipedia.
What conclusions might one venture from this small but interesting sample? One, public education in the U.S. is extraordinary, in places. You can get outstanding education for your children, without the large private tuitions paid by the elite of most countries, but you’ll probably have to invest greatly to live in one of the elite communities where this “public” good is provided. Also, cultural factors matter a lot — Asian-American focus on education is dramatically reflected in the makeup of Siemens Competition winners — and proximity to leading cities (SF, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta in this case).
Schools of Individual Winners
#1) Monta Vista High School, Cupertino, California (public, 72% Asian)
#2) Stuyvesant High School, New York, New York (public, selective)
#3) Northview High School, Duluth, Georgia (public, in John’s Creek, Georgia’s wealthiest city, near Atlanta)
#4) Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts, Natchitoches, Louisiana (statewide public, selective, residential)
#5) West High School, Iowa City, Iowa, (public)
#6) Staples High School, Westport, Connecticut (public, 1884)
Schools of Team winners
#1) Oak Ridge High School, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (public; est. 1943 for children of Manhattan Project workers)
#2) Troy High Schoool, Troy, Michigan (public)
#3) Evanston Township High school, Evanston, Illinois (public, 1883)
#4) Oceanside High School, Oceanside, New York (public, Nassau County, Long Island NY)
Horace Mann High School, Bronx, New York (private, 1887; rated by Forbes as 2nd best prep school in US)
#5) Lowell High School, San Francisco, Californic (public magnet/selective, 1856, ranked 28th best HS by USN&WR)
Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science, Denton, Texas (public, 2-yr, selective, residential)
Westwood High School, Austin, Texas (public, top-10 Texas & top 100 US rated)
#6) Palo Alto Senior High School, Palo Alto, California (public), and
Henry M. Gunn High School, Palo Alto, California (public)
The Information Diet, by Clay Johnson, forthcoming January 2012 from O'Reilly.
One of the most interesting recent developments in media discussions is Clay Johnson’s work and forthcoming book on “The Information Diet.”
Overall, I think “information diet” is in interesting and powerful concept. Yes, let’s take charge of our lives, in this as in other ways, to innovate and design and choose.
However, before adoping this metaphor too deeply, I’d like to suggest a few objections to consider.
1) We’ve mostly learned not to simply “blame” the obese (or the poor, or disabled), recognizing that this often blames the victim, or doesn’t help. Let’s not “blame our habits” and forget that they are bound up with environment, inheritance, society, and technology.
2) In many areas, end-users don’t control their information intake in the way one can control eating. For example, at school or at work.
3) Food is quantifiable in most important ways, such as calories, fat / carb / protein content, nutrients, etc. Information, however, is not meaningfully quantifiable so, even though the mathematical theory of information misleads us to think so. Information does not, technically, necessarily contain any meaning; a higher-res version of a video doesn’t usually convey much more information or meaning to us. A striking anecdote or 10-word epigram may produce a huge cognitive effect, while watching a terabyte movie file may have little effect at all.
Even quantifying information by time spent is problematic, because much of the time we multitask and take in different sort s of information at once. If I write email while watching a Netflix movie for an hour, is that one or two hours of information consumption?
4) The effect of information upon people is not nearly so determinate as that of food. If someone eats a Big Mac, you can accurate predict the nutritional outcome, but if they watch a political ad or a read a short story, their reaction may be almost anything.
5) More generally, the term “information” is a recently arisen term with many implications that aren’t necessarily articulated when it’s used. For example it implies quantifiability; the equivalence of different media objects with the same number of bits (“equivalent to X times the Library of Congress..”); the “content” residing objectively in the information and not in the receiver or cultural context or the social act of communication, etc. What about just looking at the natural environment, or listening to our own thoughts?: this is not usually considered information intake, but surely it’s cognitively significant.
Unless one wants to uncritically or unconsciously follow these significant suppositions, it may be helpful to take any statements about “information diet” and consider them with “information” replaced with other terms such as “meaning”, “perception”, “media”, “knowledge,” or “communication.” Is it still true, or does the assertion not seem to fit as well?
What do you think, are these valid objections, do you have any others?
follow me on Twitter: @mccormicktim
Reviewed: “A Jew in the Northwest” by William Deresiewicz. The American Scholar, Winter 2012. http://theamericanscholar.org/a-jew-in-the-northwest/
Portland and Mount Hood (USGS photo by David Wieprecht)
From what I gather, the path that led William Deresiewicz to be living in Portland (OR) and writing about it for highbrow journal The American Scholar began with childhood in suburban New Jersey, then going all the way to New York City for ten+ years at Columbia, then a full hour and a half up the road to Yale for another ten+. After this lifetime within a short radius of New York, he flies out to Portland and soon finds himself inspired with masterful, prophetic commentary about “Eastern” and “Western” America, apparently based heavily on readings of prior Jewish sojourners to the West, Bernard Malamud and Leslie Fieldler.
Saul Steinberg: "New York, Center of the Universe"
Bill, I hate to tell you this, as one of those excessively polite Portlanders, but your commentary paints you as a walking cliché of the Eastern Innocent Abroad. It’s a type instantly recognizable to us literate hicks out here in the territories, upon whom literary New York periodically drops a roving correspondent to gather glib, retailable anecdotes.
You come off as filled with the leaden provincialism that lets New York types consider almost every other place a naive province, no matter how little they know about it. Haven’t you ever heard that a provincial is someone who judges wherever they are by the standards of where they came from? That’s you. A cosmopolitan, which evidently you’d like to think yourself, is someone to whom nothing human is foreign, who appreciates how people live, wherever he finds himself.
As it happens, I’ve had quite a bit of experience with New York provincials, and NE vs. NW. I was born in Portland, lived until age nine in London (dual U.S. / U.K. citizen), then in Portland through high school, then spent twenty years going between East and West Coast while in college at Yale and then living mostly in New York City while in grad school and working and traveling extensively for work; now I live in Portland again. For all those years, I’ve constantly compared places and people and experiences, and met innumerable people who’ve only lived in one part of the country, or have only superficially experienced other places.
While I love New York and other Eastern cities and appreciate their many richnesses, I’ve also come to appreciate that some of the most narrow, ethnocentric, judgmental people I’ve known are from the New York area, both the native and arriviste variety. While most people, I find, think of themselves as just living in one city among others, many New Yorkers I’ve met seem to frequently dwell on why they could never live elsewhere, why theirs is the “Capital of the World”, the paradigm of “city”, and other such totally self-absorbed and small-minded obsessions. They learn, at first jokingly, to think of America as largely “flyover country”, and so, all too easily, develop a flyover mentality in which practically everybody else can be easily written off as “red state” or “suburban” or “Western” etc. This is the noxious provincialism of the Metropolis, to which even the — or perhaps particularly the — elite-educated and cultured may succumb.
poster for Portland Jewish Film Festival, 2011
So you met an awkward fellow in the supermarket who was pleased to find a Jew? And if you one goes to New York everyone one meets is what, Mikhail Baryshnikov or Moses Maimonides? No, you might well meet, say, a lot of aggressive, car-honking, swearing, impatient people, upon whom you could, if you’re a real yokel, quickly erect a great stereotype about the locals. But that would be the kind of dumb, misunderstanding thing us moronic heartland tourists would do, right?
Thanks for the lengthy explication of the great writers in whose path you hope to tread. But really, one is left devoutly wishing you could put your literary lenses away and actually pay attention to the place you’re in. Close reading of Malamud and Fiedler (whereby Oregon and Montana are, remarkably, globbed into one West) seems to have saturated you with clichés of cow-towns, philistines, “bovine imperturbability,” ahistoricity, etc. Then, wow, you observe all the same things in Portland! Now the skeptical inquirer might ask, did Fiedler and Malamud perfectly describe and predict this, or… am I seeing them rather than seeing anew?
> Ethnicity….in the eastern cities…is confrontation…loving and hating one another,
> love-hating one another…Making their own city. Making their own America.
This reads less as observation than as tenth-generation bastardized Saul Bellow. Really, it pains me.
The absence of ethnicity you observe here is strangely lost on my friends who teach in SE Portland classrooms full of Russian, Eastern European, Mexican, Central American, and SE Asian immigrants, or those teaching in suburban classrooms full of Israeli, Indian, and Chinese children of technology professionals. There are large areas of town in which you could drop into any restaurant and probably not find a native-born American working there.
> “what…I’m missing…It’s edge. It’s energy. It’s irony. It’s curiosity”
> There isn’t anything that represents the past.
local Mercedes
Here’s a clue: if ever you observe no irony, there’s a good chance you’re just failing to detect it, and the joke’s on you. If you can’t detect the past, that’s because you’re not perceptive enough, not because there is no past. For example, a proud and prominent part of the city’s history is the vibrant 100+ year-old Jewish community of South and now Southwest Portland, which seems to have escaped your notice.
It sounds to me that what you miss is really certain mannerisms — a certain, deeply profound way that a woman on the subway looks at you and is like, so totally “meta,” for example. A certain ravenous, predatory, wounded quality among the warring ethnics, perhaps. But, of all things, couldn’t you have anticipated that mannerisms are exactly what you’d expect to be different in different places, and it could be an opportunity to outgrow or test yours? Being unable to tolerate the locals’ mannerisms says precisely nothing about them, everything about you.
Portland is filled with well-educated, literate people, and a large portion of immigrants from other places and countries, certainly not just or even particularly from the Midwest as you say. People here may have as much or more perspective as you, perhaps just offered up less presumptuously and preemptively. Perhaps the problem is, as you observed in another essay, “an elite education” [such as yours, at Columbia] “makes you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you.” Yes, out here in Portland, many of us, to our undying shame, aren’t like you, and so in silence we labor, unblessed by your discourse.
Some of the energy and curiosity out here, which has apparently escaped your regal literary gaze, includes many of the top research and engineering labs for the world’s largest chipmaker, Intel; and the world’s largest sports and shoewear industry cluster, led by #1 company and brand worldwide, Nike. Also here are key nodes of the open-source world, including the creator of the Wiki and the creator of Linux; a thriving startup scene, and the nation’s highest recycling rates and bicycle commuting rates, and a large community of leading environmental building experts. Also, a healthy literary community, the world’s largest bookstore, and the country’s 2nd most heavily used library system. I don’t know how the locals do it, what with our bovine imperturbability and all, but it’s something you might be curious to check into while you’re passing through, if you can get past the noserings and what you see as the disturbing lack of angst among us freaks of nature.
Multnomah Village, Portland, near where I live
Anyway, It’s great that you’ve learned so deeply who you are: an “Easterner”, was that it? It’s unfortunate you haven’t, apparently, learned more about how others might see you, or see Easterners, or learned more about the city and region which finds itself patient host to your labors of self-discovery. Most of all, It’s unfortunate that you haven’t discovered the larger self that such learning might have graced you with, because then you might rise to the level of a writer capable of telling us about our time and place, rather than just so narcissistically about you.
follow me on Twitter: @mccormicktim
comment submitted to TechCrunch article “True Or False? Automatic Fact-Checking Coming To The Web – Complications Follow” by Devin Coldewey, 11/28/2011.> “the layering of reference and context onto the information you read”.
This exists generally in the well-tested paradigm of citation and reputation, as it functions for example in peer-reviewed literature. It seems that Daniel Schultz’s “truth goggles” could be seen as a particular version of this, in which the annotation of the base layer is automated rather than authored, and the citation framework is specifically the fact-check databases Politifact and NewsTrust (for now).
If the citation framework were generalized to allow many annotators and reference sources, then I believe we’d be close to the http://Hypothes.is project’s model.
Pure algorithmic assessment of “fact” and reasoning and valid judgment is at minimum an extremely complex, long-term problem, and is quite possibly unsolvable in ways. In a human, distributed trust system such as present peer review, we trust that communicators are incented by reputation to uphold agreed-upon standards of evidence and judgment. Writers, journal editors, research funders, research institutions, etc. collectively build a system which, ideally, systematically rewards adherence to the shared objective standards and ethics. In this model, we don’t necessarily try or have to understand how each link in the system performs its complex evaluations; we rely on the fact that they are well incented to do it correctly, and are sufficiently cross-monitored to be trusted.
Regardless of peer-review mechanism, we have thorny questions of what constitutes “true,” or “factual,” and how people are affected by information. Coldewy says “facts are facts and fiction is fiction,” and I keep hearing versions of this in discussion of fact-checking systems and civic media; but to me it is a rather vast and optimistic supposition. What theories of language, of propaganda, of politics, of media effects, of cognitive science, support the view that people get truthful, and rationally deliberate together, if we just put more “factually” true “information” out there? It seems based more on traditional faith in Enlightenment rather than on hard evidence of how communication works.
I would like to see more, and am doing some work on, media analytics / environments based on empirical evidence and cognitive science models — what actually causes what effect on readers.
anyway, I think Schultz’s work is interesting and valuable, especially the distributed / API aspect, and I’m glad to see it covered and see the rapidly developing conversation around these issues.
Tim McCormick
http://tjm.org
follow me on Twitter: @mccormicktim
Image credit: TechCrunch
further comment posted on Maria Popova’s post on Brainpickings.org: “Free Ride: Digital Parasites and the Fight for the Business of Culture”:
“Maria, I agree with you fully, there are dubious practices out there regarding online content, which may endanger the creation and curation of the culture that we want. Also, there are interesting new practices and protocols emerging for curating, etc., and I would like to contribute to fostering and protecting such wonderful things as Brainpickings/Brainpicker.
However, I think that distinguishing good from parasitic/unethical/illegal is quite subtle and complex, as shown by the jurisprudence over aggregation, and the Romanesko case. It is to help work out these issues that I offer observations about your vs. Huffington Post etc.’s practices.
As a side note, personally I am especially interested in issues of algorithmic curation — recommender systems, design for serendipity, applying cognitive science to reading environments, etc. In many cases, such systems aggregate and operate upon creative or curatorial work done by many people, so they may raise tricky questions of who and how you’d credit for the discovery.
Eli Pariser (of “The Filter Bubble”) recently at MassHumanities 8 made an argument that we need some things to be human-curated because machines can’t do the type of serendipity and discovery we need. I’m not convinced one should essentialize and separate these two dimensions: humans can be mechanical — witness most newspapers and newspaper articles — and algorithms can deliver serendipity and surprise. What we really have, now and increasingly, is cyborg curation, i.e. blended human and algorithmic work. Consider a search engine: algorithmic, but based on large-scale harvesting of human curatorial intentionality in the form of links and content. Tools like Google Reader and Twitter dramatically expand my ability to receive human-curated and created work from hundreds of diverse sources, efficiently and egalitarianly.
notice for 1968 presentation by Douglas Engelbart on "augmenting human intellect". Referred to as the "mother of all demos"
The real question is how to build systems that serve our needs (including the incenting of creation and curation, not just the end-user experience). I think one good way to frame the goal is that we are “augmenting human intellect”, as Engelbart put it in 1962.
As I see it, one reason there will be a large algorithmic component to future “curation” is that, from an end-user’s point of view, relevance and serendipity and value are individual, thus very much enhanceable by personalization. Economically, human curators can’t be doing personalized curation for every end user, so machines will play a big role there.
. . . .
Anyway, back to the issue of ethical/legal distinctions between curation and parasitism. I read the helpful paper and article by Kimberly Isbell about aggregation legal issues and best practices. Applying this to your discussion of Free Ride and parasitism, correct me if I’m wrong but it seems you focus on two main means of distinction:
1) crediting
2) commercial use
So to take 1), crediting:
> without crediting sources of discovery…it’s anywhere between
> unethical and downright illegal
I just observe that the overwhelming norm, across media, is that people don’t credit their immediate discovery source. Some books may have thorough acknowledgements, academic work may cite works, workshops or conversations which led to ideas, but these seem to be exceptions. If I look at most articles in magazines online or off, or blogs, etc., I don’t think it’s common for each element’s source to be credited. On Twitter, which is perhaps the emerging super-discovery platform, there’s barely room to credit, and the difficulties are suggested by the fact that of the 85 most recent @brainpicker tweets I looked at yesterday at noon, I counted only 5 with in-tweet credit (RT, via, HT, etc.).
I think there are many factors that incline people to not identify discovery sources, not just lack of ethics — it may be considered irrelevant, edited out for space, thought to be undesirably revealing of sources or journalistic methods, the discovery may have been algorithmic and not clearly creditable, etc.
Legally, I don’t see strong precedent for requiring disclosure of sources: as far as I can tell, the law in this area, such as around copyright and hot news, concerns reuse of material, and doesn’t address sources of discovery. Topics and facts are not copyrightable, and practically, it may be very difficult to prove where a media source discovered any given item. You suggest that HuffPo’s discovery of the AAS item from a source other than you is “statistically” unlikely, but that sounds like it would unfortunately be a difficult case to make, legally or otherwise. Would I want arbitrary sources out there judging my blog posts or tweets as unethical or illegal based on statistical likelihood of my topic coming from them? That sounds like exerting ownership of ideas, which has been explicitly rejected by our courts.
As far as how credit may be given, I’d suggest that explicit credit in the text of the piece is much better than implicit credit in the form of a link. What’s on the other end of a link may disappear, change, be offline for a particular reader at any particular moment, or effectively not be discovered/admitted as evidence in any legal test. We also can predict that users may frequently read without following out-links; so, for example, in the case of the Brainpicking article that linked to AAS vs. the Huffpo article that explicitly named the AAS exhibit, I would guess that HuffPo article readers were far more, say 100x as likely to learn about the exhibit. I know you do usually name creators/sources in Brainpickings, of course.
point 2), commercial use:
I infer that you make a distinction between non-commercial Brainpicker/Brainpickings and say, commercial HuffPo because of the “commercial” test in the fair use exclusion to copyright. From working for some years at a not-for-profit that had commercial operations, I’ve learned that the delineation of “commercial use” can be quite complex. For example:
> The Twitter example I find irrelevant – the curation I
> do there isn’t benefitting me in any way
>
> Twitter is not “monetizable” in the way HuffPo..
There are many ways that Twitter posting is both directly and indirectly monetizable. For example, you can do what a number of feeds already do, and have “sponsored posts”, disclosed or not. There are many marketers who pay people for favorable tweeting — along with favorable reviews, blog posts, and comments. Whether you do this or not, it means Twitter is not prima facie non-monetizable. Twitter links can earn associate fees — as you do with the many Brainpicker links leading to Amazon links, which have a Brainpicker associates tag that lets you earn commission on sales. Your twitter links also often lead to Brainpickings, on which you solicit donations.
More broadly, having a large following on Twitter is a clear asset in many realms, such as applying for any media- or social-networking related job. You noted that “followers…[are] a different kind of currency.” If you get a social-media fellowship at MIT or Harvard’s Nieman Foundation, or get writing/curating work at the Atlantic, would you really say that having 100k + followers had nothing to do with it?
My experience is that unless you are a registered not-for-profit organization, and your activity falls clearly within the not-for-profit mission of that organization, then claiming non-commercial use is not clearcut. It doesn’t necessarily matter if you are, de facto, not making money, it matters what your legal status is and whether the activity is in keeping with that status grant. Practically, individuals or any party not affirmatively classified as not-for-profit, can often encounter difficulties claiming fair use exemption this way.
You may point out that you are providing a “public service,” and give your curation for free. But any commercial Web site might also say it performs a public service by offering freely accessible content. Ad monetization can and frequently is avoided by readers’ use of, say, AdBlocker or, like you, Google Reader, which sites like HuffPo don’t prevent me from doing.
Anyway, I thank you again for the cabinet of wonders that is Brainpickings/picker, and hope that my ruminations may be of some help. I’d like to keep in conversation as I work on my own discovery-tool / curation projects, and perhaps publish some findings this year.
This was a comment I wrote to Maria Popova, curator of the popular Brain Pickings blog / Twitter feed, on her article “Free Ride: Digital Parasites and the Fight for the Business of Culture” (November 16, 2011). That article reviewed Robert Levine’s “Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back.”
Maria, I appreciate what you do and often read interesting items pointed to by your Twitter feed.
However, I am having difficulty following how you can sharply distinguish between creators and “aggregators”. To me, what you do is primarily aggregation — you curate and point me to other content — and it has value. Barely ever do I read something that you fully “created”, say wrote word for word without referencing or summarizing anything else; and of course, hardly anything is created ex nihilo like that.
You give Huffington Post’s item about the Victorian map of woman’s heart, which you say was lifted from your article, as an example of “parasite” practices, whereby “editorial and curatorial merit are being hijacked…not benefitting the original creator or curator in any way.”
So, I compared your piece, HuffPo’s, and the original source, and come to a different conclusion. Your piece features a map exhibited by the American Antiquarian Society’s current exhibit, “Beauty, Virtue & Vice.” The AAS is the currently relevant “creator”, by having collected the materials, mounted the show, and put online the map images. However, your article text doesn’t mention the AAS or the exhibit, merely linking in one place to an AAS web page from which one might possibly infer and navigate to info about the show.
By comparison, HuffPo’s article explicitly credits the exhibition, gives the AAS’s full name and show name, and fully encourages readers to view the show: “check out the whole exhibit here — it’s worth it”. You say this was HuffPo “reposting a reworded article,” but as I compare them, the text is entirely different, and it’s not self-evident that they took the item from you. Presumably a lot of other people saw and passed around references to the exhibition, it’s at least possible they had another source.
I would hardly say that, looking around the internet or at media in general, it’s pervasive practice for people to cite exactly how they first came across sources — this would often be impractical, could cause legal issues, expose working methods, etc. Few of your Twitter posts, or those of Read Write Web or any other major source, for example, say how the cited item was found. HuffPo may have found the subject from your blog / Twitter feed, but they obviously went and and looked at it themselves and wrote it up; didn’t they just find it via you, just as you find things via other sources all the time?
I don’t mean to explain or defend Huffington Post’s practices in general, I just use this as an illustrative case. My point is there doesn’t seems to be a huge distinction between the “creator” curating you say you do, which is often just a pointer to another source, and the “parasite” aggregation of the HuffPo example you cite.
I’d say it’s theoretically and practically very difficult to clearly distinguish between creating, curating, assembling, and “aggregating.” Authors assemble, editors create, filmmakers “direct”. The “assemblage” that I, Twitter, Google Reader, etc. do in pulling together my daily online reading has great cultural value to me. I see a big continuum of combinatorial activities, a bounty which we can both use and add to; not the sharply delinated creators/parasites you suggest. There may be a case for the “parasite” view, but I don’t see that you’ve made it here.
Anyway, thanks for Brainpickings, I’m a supporter.
