PR from the Beach

Knowledge Engines inch us closer to Wikipedia immersion

Google's announcements today of its latest projects - the Knowledge Graph - sounds fascinating but takes us closer to a world history written according to Wikipedia. Google admits that much of the 'knowledge' powering their new search results - see their video below - is sourced from Freebase, bought by them in 2010, who in turn got heaps of data from Wikipedia and other data bases around the web.

My question is, if the source information is pulled out of areas such as Wikipedia - which is, despite their best efforts - still prone to inaccuracy, 'editing-out' and edit wars - how long before our history and the things we are 'allowed' to find are either rewritten, rubbed out or removed from actual experience or alternatively distorted by indiviual perspectives that can manipulate the systems?

It all sounds very useful and I am sure it will be. But - and it is a big but - the Knowledge Graph is filled with bear-traps and Orwellian group-think. It might seem that our knowledge is 'extended' by this -  I fear wisdom is being left behind.

 

Christchurch gathers in consolation

 

Yesterday's Christchurch Memorial Service saw the end of an indescribably long three weeks, punctuated by unbelievable tragedy, devastation and destruction.

Many have remarked on the resilience of the human spirit and taken great comfort from the selfless humanitarian actions of others. At this very minute, that selflessness is in evidence still at the Japanese nuclear power plant as workers - some of whom have themselves described it as a suicide mission - continue to do all they can to prevent meltdown. It is truly incredible that in the space of just one week, Japan has borne earthquake, tsunami, nuclear accident all now interlaced with frozen snow and ice.

Our own earthquake, less than a month ago, was commemorated at Hagley Park yesterday. The video above was played during the service and provides a grim illustration of the extent of the damage, as well as the task set before those courageous enough to go straight into the debris to search for survivors.  As the brave Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams were applauded on arrival at the service - and how fittingly so, being the heroes that they are - my thoughts were with their colleagues in Japan who, having worked their way through the crumbled ruins of Christchurch rescuing the living and retrieving the dead, now pick their way through the frozen carnage left by our world's most recent natural disaster.

Many have commented that watching the live footage of the tsunami was akin to watching a disaster movie, complete with amazing special effects - simply because that kind of devastation isn't something we recognise as being  'real life'. It is the stuff of imagination, not the grim reality of living nightmare. This was a real and ghastly event, sweeping away real people, real lives and real places.

The first nine weeks of 2011 have left millions of lives changed forever. My hope - and the hope of millions of other ordinary people like me - is that we can work together to help all those affected by these disasters and upheavals to rebuild and rediscover their lives. There have been thousands of heroic actions both here and in Japan and every single moment, every single action merits tribute.

We won't ever be in the same league as the USAR heroes, but we can all do something to help. As has been said: no kindness, however small, is wasted. And to all those in the services - USAR, firefighters, police offices,  paramedics and many, many others -  who selflessly put their own lives on the line, on hold or on the edge when disaster strikes, we owe you a debt of gratitude that we can only humbly acknowledge, never repay. Thank you.

So has the first Cyber War begun?

Amazon has now had a blip, Mastercard and others have experience distributed-denial-of-service attacks and Saturday's UK Guardian announces that the hackers claim the first global cyber war has begun.

Back in 2006, when I first stumbled on the film 'V for Vendetta' you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would go along with the conspiracy theories that fuelled the plot. After all, they would say, nothing like that could possibly happen in this day and age - we're much too smart. And besides, ordinary folk just don't get off the benches and do that sort of thing. Interesting then that the Anonymous group, alleged to be behind the attacks, has adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from the film as their collective avatar as they ostensibly stand up against the demise of the WikiLeaks site and arrest of Assange. But are they the 'ordinary folk' behind the mask that they purport to be? Elsewhere the hackers have been described as ordinary people rising up to 'right the wrongs' they perceive to have occurred. There are definitely some serious wrongs going on in this sorry saga, but I do wonder if these 'ordinary hackers' are sincere in their stand for 'the people's rights' , whether they have stopped to consider the consequences of their actions or whether they are merely keen to exercise a little anarchistic muscle.

It might seem inconsequential for most of us - something happening beyond our control out there in cyberspace - where, let's face it, many mostly go to check Facebook, chat on Twitter or email out some Christmas greetings.  Truth is, even if claims of the first global cyber war have been exaggerated, the implications of the online actions of all those involved - from WikiLeaks, to Governments, hackers to downloaders - are considerable.

I've written about this before (back in 2007) and again more recently following the China hacks and we all need to be concerned, aware of what can and can't be done in such circumstances and also - most importantly - that the web is not the bastion of free speech that many of us would like to believe it to be.  Frustratingly, not many people seem to care and, worryingly, there is very little collective business, individual or organisational will to address the problems this sort of denial of service can cause or to address the social and economic impact it will have on the real ordinary people who will find they can't get their money, or buy food or operate within a system increasingly dependent on online interactions. Somehow I can't see the hackers themselves coughing up the cash refused to the hungry, cold pensioner because 'the computer says no'.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the players who withdrew services from the WikiLeaks site did so to maintain their political licence to operate, rather than to ensure everyone toed the line when it came to site terms and conditions. Shame should rest on the political masters who may have engineered such reactions.  I am also convinced that at least some of the hackers currently dealing out 'payback' are doing it because the WikiLeaks affair provides a useful sandbox environment that allows them to see just how far they can get. Now, as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

As with all wars, the innocent are the ones caught in the middle and even a cyber war will see casualties mounting. Sadly, I suspect the first great loss will be the opportunity the web provides for Freedom of Speech. Another bleakly Orwellian view I can glimpse is that Freedom of Thought would be the next human right to bite the dust as first the governments, then the web giants, then the hackers seek to control - from behind their respective and particular masks - what we say and do online and off, as well as what we are allowed to hear and see.

 

It's NOT ok to feed the oglers

Long story short, the ladette website nzgirl has launched a 'campaign' purporting to 'raise awareness' for breast cancer, paying $1000 dollars per 50 photos of readers' breasts uploaded to their site.

Over the years we've had astroturfing, greenwashing, pinkwashing - and now we have boobwashing. The site claims it's all in a good cause. The site fails to say exactly which breast cancer charity they will be paying the money to. They also trumpet the fact, via Twitter and elsewhere, they have 'removed' advertising around the publication page. Yeah right. Big deal. It is still a cynical and distorted means to drive traffic to the site - the only 'awareness' raising being done here is for nzgirl, its website and the long-term ad rate it will be able to charge on the strength of distorted visitor numbers.

I've lost several nearest-and-dearest to breast cancer and currently count among my closest friends two survivors and one mid-fight.  I asked them - and those around them - what they thought of this slapstick and juvenile enterprise, thinking maybe it was just me, maybe I'd got a bit set in my ways. Their unanimous verdict was the same as mine - it is unethical, undignified and unacceptable.  

nzgirl has accused detractors and critics of being 'PC' - well yes, I am - Perfectly Cynical in my view of the means, motives and outcomes for this pathetically purile publicity promotion.

To me, it is sadly proof that the young and the bright among us can still manage to stoop to the nasty, tawdry 20th (even 19th) century Phineas T Barnum stunt school of cheap publicity.

nzgirl has succeeded in creating a circus today with the media as ringmaster and the unwitting - and probably well-meaning -  supporters the dancing bares.

In many ways, it's a sad indictment of our society. Long after the circus has left town, the oglers (probably the same ones who line the streets for the Boobs on Bikes debacle every year) will still be pushing up the visitor numbers at NZ Girl, which has effectively bought itself a peepshow for a few grand. New Zealand girls and women deserve better than this, as do all those who have and continue to battle this disease.

 

PS: I've come back to this post this evening, having read two other blog posts on the same subject. First from Lance Wiggs and second, via @CateOwen's tweet, some great observations from Boganette. Both well worth a read.

Scattering the Seed - Will Diaspora exile Facebook? There's a sea change ahead

The new kids on the block are all set to make their first sprint into a new type of web. I know - we've heard that before, but I wonder if the boys from Diaspora will be one of the few to make it. A dozen ago, the lads from Google had not yet grown into the mighty men they have become in today's world and, although I'm not sure if they can take on the web giants, I wouldn't be surprised if a decade down the line, Diaspora has scattered at least a sizeable proportion of the 500 million Facebook users into another type of web engagement where we manage our own social graph.

Next month sees the release of their 'first sprint' and post-September 15 (a date often cited as Google's birthday by the way) I suspect we will see some interesting conversations.  October will see the rest of us able to have a play with the ideas they have come up with during their 'northern hemisphere' summer.

Last week I blogged here about the community pages auto-generated by Facebook and the headaches that will cause not just for organisations but for the individuals whose status updates are being scooped up and used to auto-populate the auto-pages that nobody really wants.

If Diaspora helps people to 'break free' from the Facebook mindset then good on them. I wish them luck - but I am still a little cautious.  I appreciate that their idea is to decentralise personal and social information and have that information scattered on a 'need to know and consent to share' basis, but I still see problems ahead if they do reach the size of Google.  Google's information reach is phenomenal and I've long questioned such access being in the hands of one party. So imagine a network where the information reach is as big -  but it's not train timetables, company details and maps. Instead, it's all personal. It is all about You.  I understand that security will be tight, built in, bolted on, capable of dancing a jig and making the tea, but ultimately, anything is hackable.

So, watch the space carefully in the weeks and months ahead. It may spark and fizzle into nothing, but sometimes sparks take a long time to ignite. One thing is for sure, there's a sea change ahead. It will be interesting to see who battens down their information hatches and who decides to sit astride the bow and welcome the waves.

A gossipy PS concerning Google's birthday: Often cited as September 15, yet Google has doodled its birthday graphic variably on September 7, September 27 and on Google's Tenth birthday timeline, the company is said to have been registered on September 15. So an interesting choice of date for Diaspora's launch don't you think?

Scratching at the Surface - Wirtland gets physical

This time last year I blogged about the virtual country, Wirtland, which had been established as a haven for those fed up with their own physical land-locked, quarrelsome or cash-strapped places of residence - although to be fair, Wirtland describes itself as 'an experiment into legitimacy and self-sustainability of a country without its own soil'.

Things have moved on apace in twelve months, as it seems they need their own soil after all.  Cristopher Luengo, PR Attache to the Government of Wirtland's Foreign Office, has issued an email release to advise that Wirtland is shopping for land, with its sights set on the tiny South Pacific Island nation, Nauru. Cristopher says in his release that Wirtland hopes to acquire land by consent from Nauru and, if successful, it would be the first case of a peaceful formation of a new country 'from scratch'.

I was surprised to see the bid for land, as Wirtland's national pride lies in its virtuality (or virtuosity?), although I can quite understand if you are going to set up a new country then a tiny sun-drenched South Pacific paradise is going to please the voters.  However, it would seem that under various international conventions, Wirtland cannot be recognised as a nation state without a bit of land to hang on to. The quality and size of the land doesn't matter apparently - it simply has to exist and nationals have to own a piece. The intention is not to move there - ever.  Just fulfill the requirements of international law when it comes to recognition.  I have no idea what Nauru makes of all this so far and it is going to be really interesting watching Wirtland's progress towards a virtual real-estate  existence. 

I did find myself deliberating (with myself of course) whether, if Nauru was against the plan, I could sell Wirtland residents a few feet of my back garden? Technically it's mine to do with as I wish - but would that constitute selling New Zealand (or four flower beds of it in any case) illegally? Such are the legal conundrums that social media, its virtual and physical manifestations present to us. If you know the answer, tell me - I'd love to know what the legal ramifications would be!

The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence

This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.

Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'.  In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon.  But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak).  But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products? 

At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on.  A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.

I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley.  The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries  - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely).  There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.

Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.

I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked. 

Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.

Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.

Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.

Two degrees off integration

2degrees mobile ran its 'press launch' this morning, leaving me questioning why they couldn't tell us all at the same time. Why run a 'press launch', when you can tell me yourselves? After all - I am your potential customer and you already know I am listening.

At 9am, when the 'launch' ran, the 2degrees site and blog were not updated with the long anticipated pricing information. As one of 20,000 people the company says pre-registered, why didn't they email me with details instead of sending me a patronising and vague 'we'll send you your SIM sometime soon' message? They have my mobile number too, so text would have done the job. A neat, direct contact that would have had me waiting in line tomorrow morning to look at the phones on offer and become a happy customer. Indeed, had they done so, 2degrees and I would now be holding hands, smiling at each other and starting a lovely new relationship.

But no. Instead, the only information I got was via a brief Twitter stream, presumably from the media conference.

It is very good news that there will be a phone company operating in New Zealand offering us value for money and that the cell phone noose held tight by Vodafone and Telecom has been loosened but somehow the shiny, friendly launch was dulled by the lack of joined-up thinking on communication.

Companies and organisations need to realise that if they are using social media tools to engage with their communities - whether their aim is to generate a purchase or provide a service - they need to engage directly with those communities and not give precedence to old-school mainstream media techniques  mostly concerned with vanity coverage as opposed to real outcomes.

Which do you think is more powerful?  Direct communication with 20,000 engaged, potential customers who will not only spread your message by word of mouth wildfire and spend the cash necessary to support you or filtered communication with commercially-led mainstream media channels, which, if you check your research, will have dwindling influence among your potential and active communities?

For me, 2degrees demonstrated once again that many organisations do not yet understand that they are no longer simply providers of information, but publishers. And, if they start a dialogue with a group of people, they can't suddenly switch off, ignore the first group and pour their hearts out to someone they assume might be more interesting. A bit like those dreadful networking events were people start a conversation with you but look at their watch and turn away if they believe you are not useful enough.

Organisations today do not have to utilise filtered mainstream media unless that media is a target community of its own. Direct, honest communication with no separation at all between your organisation and your community is the way to go. 2degrees made much of NZ's population knowing someone who knew someone. They had a direct channel to a large group of people and blew their advantage. The effort organising the press launch would have been better directed getting the SIM cards delivered on time tomorrow, rather than telling us we might have to wait a week or so. That way, we would be loaded up with $20 top-ups and they would start to put money in the bank on day one. Instead, we will be twiddling our thumbs in indecision, unsure as to whether to wait for the SIM delivery, buy one or stuff the whole thing and sign up with Vodafone for an iPhone instead (I doubt anyone will look at Telecom as an option, but that's another story).

While two degrees can be a precise measurement, in navigational terms, being two degrees off can take you somewhere you really didn't want to go, leaving you lost or marooned. Let's hope 2degrees remembers who it needs to talk to, as I for one would like to see them give it a go.

Don't worry about owning social media - just defend it

There is a blog post today from Text 100 about 'who owns social media', which came to my notice via @creoceo.  In this case, they suggest this 'duel' is between public relations and advertising. Personally, I think they might just have too much time on their hands. This week we remember those who died in Tiananmen Square. A week in which China was so keen to minimise global and domestic memories of this protest and the subsequent slaughter they snuffed out access to social media channels like Twitter and others. Given this situation, surely to goodness any social media discussion should be revolving around something more productive than 20th century-style turf wars?

For more years than I care to remember I have been trotting round various countries helping public relations practitioners and others understand and come to grips with the disruptive technologies that make up the social media environment. Every time I advise them that as practitioners, we are the navigators in this environment, working alongside those we are helping to build the relationships they need to operate. We need to understand the channels, know how to work them, understand when and why to engage with them - and it is vital to our work that we do this. But I don't own social media - nor would I want to. I am far more interested in it remaining a suite of unfiltered, direct, open access channels that allow me to listen, engage, act and build with those communities I work with and alongside.

What I have become passionately concerned about is the lengths that some are going to in order to block access to the channels, or disrupt them, or switch them on and off according to political whim. This is of great concern and, I believe, should be the burning discussion among practitioners - not 'who owns it, ads or PR' - what a very old fashioned discussion!

Twenty years ago, a student jumped the barriers in Tiananmen Square and tried to stop a line of tanks. He stood, bravely and passionately, for free speech and, momentarily, for freedom itself. The world seemingly chose to ignore China's actions that day - or at least, let them get away with it. It would seem that 20 years on, the actions taken to curb, restrict and crush free speech, this time on the internet rather than the streets, have also been ignored.

For all those social media advocates out there - these actions are ignored at our collective peril. If access can be turned off and on by political whim, who really gives two hoots about who *owns* something that by its very nature is unable to be possessed. Our concern will be that we can no longer access, connect or share with each other. That to me, is of considerable significance. Discuss.

Expenses error? Pah! Clapham Omnibus Man would be in Clink!

Politicians in the UK have been in the spotlight for the last week or two after revelations concerning the abuse of expense accounts. Seems like most of them have been 'at it' and the original protestations centred around the whole affair being 'a problem with the system' and 'the system needs overhauling'. Well I'm sorry, but no system includes claiming expenses on something that is already paid off and I can't believe that anyone with a real sense of public duty would for one moment imagine that this or some of the expenses claimed were legitimate.

Had any ordinary citizens - the Man on the Clapham Omnibus for example - made such claims they would have been banged up for fraud. And how on earth did these expenses get past the Inland Revenue? Ordinary employees face reels of red tape when it comes to 'perks', 'expenses', or 'company benefits' with the laws on company cars a classic example.  How the MPs have got away with it all this time is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the real perk of being a British MP is that you can blatantly circumvent the laws that govern everyone else?

Stephen Fry made some good points about the media coverage of the scandal when he was interviewed for Newsnight but even though I agreed with his observations on journalists' inclinations when it came to their expenses, MPs are servants of the public and as such should always remember the money they have to spend - or claim - comes from the hard work of others via their taxes. Something is rotten in the State of Britain - and requires some urgent sorting out.