Digg for Democracy

Digg's pretty established these days as a way of crowd-sourcing newsgathering. How about applying the same idea to politics?

Lots of sites enable debate and voting over issues, but with Digital Democracy the site members have absolute authority over identifying, prioritising and voting on the issues. What's more, Digital Democracy has the power to enable participation of every British citizen in the process of democratic decision making.

Bit quiet at the moment,: perhaps someone should submit it to Digg...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

DYB DYB DYB for Drigg

As rumours swirl about Google buying Digg, spare a thought for the parlous plight of the open source version, Drigg:

I took Drigg this far, but I am fatigued. I wrote Drigg not out of passion for programming, but because I felt that the whole world needed it. I wrote several thousands of line of code in a very short time, and kept fixing bug after bug. I also took the step of splitting Drigg into several sub-module--a painful, bold and much needed move. Not, the big reports are very few and Drigg is very well structured.

I am now looking for a new co-maintainer who can take the lead in Drigg's development. I am not a programmer, and I don't feel I am the right person to push this project any further. There are important features that need to be implemented, and I am just too slow. I am not a very skilled programmer, and it simply shows. The code is good out of immensely hard work, and this means that development is slow. I feel the community deserves better.

I will still be here! People who know me and trust me know that I will hold the hand of the new maintainer and will make sure that everything is going the right direction. I will be here, via email, IM, phone, etc. The new maintainer needs to know:

* PHP
* Drupal modules
* Javascript

If you would like to take over an immensely important, exciting, lively project, please let me know now ("merc" followed my "mobily1" and then ".com").

Someone?

Reddit Goes Open Source

On Open Enterprise blog.

Digg, Dugg, Dugg

The perils of being Dugg:

At around 4am PST today, the last of the Firefox 3 Beta 1 release candidate builds appeared on our public FTP. This was mistakenly reported on Digg as the official release of the first Firefox 3 Beta. It’s extremely flattering to get this sort of attention, and we know that it’s motivated by the very best of intentions, but it does cause us three major problems:

1. The release candidate builds have not been thoroughly tested by our QA group,
2. we haven’t completed all the steps required for a beta release (see below), and
3. these builds aren’t being mirrored properly on our servers.

Perhaps they should give would-be downloaders a little coding test before giving them access to ensure that they are *really* serious hackers.... (Via Linux Journal.)

Hugging Hugg.com

Although the site itself is nothing special, its name is sheer genius. (Via GigaOM.)

Why Their Number is Up

There is an incredible - nay, pivotal - event unfolding on Digg. And it all revolves around a number. As the excellent Brownian Emotion explains:

This number is the key to unlocking the encryption for all high-definition DVDs, the possible successor to the popular DVD format. Using this key in a special program could allow one to copy an HD-DVD, and would thus violate the DMCA and the copyright of the content owners who produce those HD-DVDs.

Of course, the existence of this number is further demonstration of the fact that those in the content industry really don't understand technology: it was bound to be found, and once found, disseminated. But where the story gets really interesting is after those behind the broken HD-DVD technology started trying to block the publication of that number. As we know (from about 15 years of Internet history), this can't be done. But it turns out that it's even better than that. People started posting links to the number on Digg; Digg was then hit with legal orders to take those posts down, which it did. Digg was then flooded - utterly flooded - with posts about that number and diggs for those posts, until finally, Digg's Kevin Rose decided to do the brave thing:

after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be. If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying. Digg on, Kevin

Kudos, Kev. As a result, the Digg front page is currently awash with stories that contain the number, most with huge levels of diggs (to which I am proud to have added my widow's mite). This shows two things. First, when the diggnation get it into their head to make a point, there's little even Kev can do about it, short of shutting down the site. Secondly, that attempts to stop the publication of this kind of information is even more doomed than it was ten years ago. The reason is not just that Web 2.0 has given even more power to the digital people, but because of the nature of what is being published. It's a number: - pure information. There is simply no way that a number can be kept secret, as all the witty Digg postings which just "happen" to mention that particular number, show. Since everything in the digital world, ultimately, is a number, this also shows why it is impossible to stop the copying of any digital artefact: it's just a number, that has no meaning of itself, only through context and interpretation. So while a number might be the digital representation of a document or song or picture to you, to me it's just my favourite number. There is currently no law against sharing favourite numbers. And the Digg revolt shows what will happen if anyone is foolish enough to bring one in. For all those trying to defend digital content against copying in this way, their number is truly up.

Undermining Digg

Digg occupies such an emblematic place in the Web 2.0 world that it's important to understand what's really going on with this increasingly powerful site (on the rare occasions that I've had stories dugg, my traffic has been stratospheric for a day or two before sagging inexorably down to its usual footling levels.)

So this story from Annalee Newitz on Wired News is at once fascinating and frightening:

I can tell you exactly how a pointless blog full of poorly written, incoherent commentary made it to the front page on Digg. I paid people to do it. What's more, my bought votes lured honest Diggers to vote for it too. All told, I wound up with a "popular" story that earned 124 diggs -- more than half of them unpaid. I also had 29 (unpaid) comments, 12 of which were positive.

Although it's worrying that Digg can be gamed so easily, there's hope too:

Ultimately, however, my story did get buried. If you search for it on Digg, you won't find it unless you check the box that says "also search for buried stories." This didn't happen because the Digg operators have brilliant algorithms, however -- it happened because many people in the Digg community recognized that my blog was stupid. Despite the fact that it was rapidly becoming popular, many commenters questioned my story's legitimacy. Digg's system works only so long as the crowds on Digg can be trusted.

Digg remains a fascinating experiment in progress; let's hope it works out.

Dell 2.0

Like most readers of this blog, I spend so much time leading a Web 2.0 existence, that I am often surprised, as I emerge blinking into the sunlight, that the Real World is still resolutely 1.0. So the news that Dell is starting to get it with the launch of its (horribly-named) Dell IdeaStorm is a welcome sign that that parts of the world are upgrading:

The name is a take-off on the word “brainstorm” and it is our way of building an online community that brings all of us closer to the creative side of technology by allowing you to share ideas and interact with other customers and Dell experts. You can suggest new products or services you’d like to see Dell develop or tell the world how you feel about major trends in technology and society. We hope this site fosters a candid and robust conversation about your ideas.

Of course, candid conversations have to be two-way, Mikey, so it will be interesting to see whether you live up to your side of the bargain. In particular, the top three suggestions - no extra installed software, and pre-installed GNU/Linux distros - are all very easy to implement if the will is there.

It seems very open: I just went there and clicked on a few stories without any kind of registration required. This obviously leaves it open to abuse, but with luck the sheer volume of genuine users will swamp and attempt to game the system. (Via TechCrunch.)

Update 1: There are now nigh on 50,000 votes for the GNU/Linux option...let's hope Mikey is listening.

Update 2: May be things are moving:

While "I can't speak specifically to Linux," Pearson said, "I can assure you it is getting full attention."

O Rose, Thou Art Sick!

Further proof, if any were needed, that we haven't really got the hang of this water thing:

The total amount of water used to produce and deliver one bottle of imported water is 6.74kg (5kg + 20g + 1kg + 720g)! And the amount of GHGs released amount to 250g (93g + 4.3g + 153g), or 0.25kg, or 0.00025 tons.

(Via Digg.)

WTF is WTF?

Dave Sifry has always been one of the do-ers in the world of computing. And as someone who has been at the heart of open source for over a decade, he can be counted on to be plugged into hot trends.

His latest wheeze, Where's The Fire? or WTF? - a play on the acronym WTF? - ought, by rights, to be really sizzling, and not just because of it's name:

On January 31, 2007 Technorati released a new feature to help people to get explanations on things they see popping up in the blogosphere.

...

You can also write a WTF on any topic that someone would search for, and provide information and resources to them about that topic or subject. So, you might want to write a WTF about yourself or your friends names, or your company (or maybe even your competition!)

If you think that you've got a better explanation than the one that shows up on top of Technorati search results for a term, no worries, just go and write your own, and get your friends to vote for it. WTF uses a special time weighted voting system that means that the most popular recent WTFs will show up on top of the page.

As this indicates, WTF? hopes to tap into the power of both Digg and Wikipedia: user-generated, explanatory content that is voted up or down by peer review. At the moment there's not much there, and it seems to me that there's a crucial piece missing from the WTF idea.

The "blurb", as the basic unit of WTF is called, resides on Technorati's servers, not the blurber's: this means that blurb authors receive no compensation other than "glory". Unless there is some Technorati-juice being dispensed in the form of built-in links to the blurber's blog (and not just ones added gratuitously), I fear that most of the better bloggers will just say: "WTF?".

Mmm, Yes, But

Antony Mayfield points to an interesting piece in the Guardian that worries about what it calls the Mmm, Yes, But culture that blogs can spawn:

They will write: "Mmm, yes, but have you considered ..." To which we will reply: "Mmm, yes, you could be right about ..." And so a wonderfully civilised post-Blairite conversation will ensue. I wonder. There's nothing very civilised about a lot of the posting happening now; it's more like a shouting match-cum-punchup. And that's why it's often so entertaining. There is something about the Mmm-yes-but theory of the blog that is quite disquieting. Even if it became a reality, it could result only in hesitant journalism, bland criticism and writing that is predisposed to dull consensus.

As a journalist and blogger, I too have noticed this practice. Indeed, I adopt myself. But this is not out of timidity, but because I think it is the only way if blogging is to lead to anything of value in terms of online discussions.

If you want to see why the mmm-yes-but approach is necessary, take a look at the comments on Digg or Slashdot. There you will see human nature at its worst, with abusive, ad hominem, logicless attacks on the other posts leading to yet more of the same. If, on the contrary, you answer with the mmm-yes-but technique, I've noticed how it quickly chills the temperature of the debate. Not, let it be noted, the level of the debate, merely the language in which it is framed.

So to the Guardian writer and his points, I can only say: mmm, yes, but....

Welcome to Iconistan

I'm such a sucker for clever neologisms:

There's a turf war heating up over a strip of web real estate called "Iconistan."

You won't find this mythical land on a map, as Iconistan exists only at the bottom of blog posts. It's where that little crowd of icons gathers, begging you to post a bit of news to Digg, Reddit, del.icio.us and various other social news and community sites.

All the News You Can Trust

Here's an interesting twist on the Digg idea: a site that does not merely vote stories up or down, but which rates them in terms of their reliability - quality, not mere popularity:

In recent years, the consolidation of mainstream media, combined with the rise of opinion news and the explosion of new media outlets, have created a serious problem for democracy: many people feel they can no longer trust the news media to deliver the information they need as citizens.

To address this critical issue, NewsTrust is developing an online news rating service to help people identify quality journalism - or "news you can trust." Our members rate the news online, based on journalistic quality, not just popularity. Our beta website and news feed feature the best and the worst news of the day, picked from hundreds of alternative and mainstream news sources.

This non-profit community effort tracks news media nationwide and helps citizens make informed decisions about democracy. Submitted stories and news sources are carefully researched and rated for balance, fairness and originality by panels of citizen reviewers, students and journalists. Their collective ratings, reviews and tags are then featured in our news feed, for online distribution by our members and partners.

It's a laudable idea, although I'm not sure how it will be funded in the long-term, or whether it will fall victim to people with an agenda putting together a clique to skew the results. (Via OpenBusiness.)

OA Book on OA from OA Publisher

As the Digg lot say, "title says it all" - or nearly: worth noting too that this open access book on open access comes from a publisher that provides open access to all its titles. (Via Open Access News.)

Open Source Radio

I mention this for the sake of completeness, since I can't imagine many people will be interested in buying one of these high-end software-defined radios. But the idea of a device - any device - totally controlled by software, preferably open software, rather than through physical buttons and knobs is clearly the way of the future for certain classes of systems. (Via Digg.)

8020 Vision

Although my interest in art photography is more passing than passionate, here's an idea that brings together a number of threads in a novel way. JPG Magazine is a Web site and a magazine with a difference:

JPG Magazine is made by you! As a member, you can submit photos and vote on other members' submissions.

So it's a kind of Digg meets Flickr meets Worth1000.com, with more to come, apparently.

Gold Digg-ing

The news that someone is offering their Digg profile on eBay is hardly a surprise in these days when people will try to sell anything there; but it's nonetheless significant. Digg is one of the leading Web 2.0 sites, and a leading exponent of the power of social networks. What can be done with Digg can be applied elsewhere.

This will lead to a de-coupling between the person who creates the online account in these networks and the account itself, which can be sold to and used by others. Which raises the question: wherein lies the value of that account? If the person who created it - and whose social "value" it reflects - moves on, what then of that value? In effect, the account becomes more of a brand, with certain assumed properties that can be lost as easily as they were gained if the new owner fails to maintain them.

World (Wide Web) War 2.0

One noticeable effect of blogs is that they can bring out the worst in people. In part, this is the email problem of being unable to judge tone writ large. But it also seems to be the case that the sheer ease-of-use of the medium encourages all kinds of loonies to creep out of the woodwork. Religious wars on the relative merits of free software and open source are quite mild compared to no-holds-barred attitude among the political blogs, which seem to polarise writers and readers alike.

That's why I tend to avoid sites like the one this appeared on, but as you will see from the post in question, something interesting is about to happen: the self-professed "lizardoids" are about to take on the "moonbats" in the Web 2.0 arena. What this means in practice is that there are going to be huge battles for the soul of Digg, with lots of marking up and down.

It might be quite entertaining, but it certainly won't be pretty. (Via BGSL.)

Stumbling after Stumbling upon StumblingUpon

A few months ago I, ahem, stumbled upon StumbleUpon, which I learn has just joined the growing dotcom 2.0 feeding frenzy with some six-figure angel funding.

The idea behind StumbleUpon is simple: you rate pages that other "stumblers" have found and recommended. This feeds back into the pages that are fed to you, as do other pages that you've stumbled upon independently, and rated. All standard social software stuff, with a hint of Google's PageRank thrown in for good measure.

It's a great displacement activity, and when I first stumbled upon it I spent some time wandering around other people's stumbles. Some were genuinely interesting, but as time went on, despite all my approving and disapproving, there weren't proportionately more sites that interested me, just a constant succession of occasional pages that on their own would have been mildly amusing. Ultimately it seemed that there was no pattern in the carpet, just more and more stuff - a kind of drip-feed Digg.com.

Maybe the novelty of stumbling wore off, but I fear it is something deeper: that it's not a very efficient way to find matter that is really of interest - as opposed to vaguely entertaining. For that, the usual news channels - and a judicious selection of hard-working blogs (like paidContent, whose posting told me about StumbleUpon's company of angels) - seems a far more reliably productive way to gather information and sites. To say nothing of Google's PageRank, or even Digg.com - which you can at least skim-read very fast.

So who's stumbling here: me or the stumblers?

Opening Up to Pure Geek Goodness

The real power of open APIs is not so much the particular, obvious things they let you do, but that - as with all open endeavours - they remove unnatural obstacles so that the only limits are your ingenuity.

For example, an outfit called TruePath Technologies has plugged network monitoring into Google's open Calendar API to create something no sane - or uninspired - individual would ever have dreamt of. (Via Digg)