Collaborative Futures Day5: DONE!

We did it!

It took 5 days, no pre-coordination, we didn’t know each other in advance, we don’t necessarily agree on a lot of things, but we wrote a book together – more than 30,000 words written, edited, redited. On Monday it will be sent to the printer and that’s it. Kind of…Well the book is open ended, the first release will be printed next week but anyone can go and add to the book or edit the current version.

The book (PDF & ePub versions to follow soon) turned out way way way more successful than I expected, but maybe it’s only because I didn’t get enough sleep. We covered a lot of ground, many of our chapters are skeptical others are very hopeful. Some of the collaborations mentioned in the book refer to examples as new as last week (Haiti), some are very personal, some are just hilarious.

CF team - Temporary image, until I get a better one with everyone inside

Disclaimer

7 things this book is not:

  1. It is not an exhaustive survey of any type or any aspect of collaboration
  2. It is not consistent in its tone and writing style
  3. It is not devoid of repetitions or conceptual holes
  4. It is not really an art book
  5. It is not really a cultural theory book
  6. It is not really a technology book
  7. It is not bad at all

Read More »

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Collaborative Futures Day4: Web 3.0 is bullshit too

4 days of intense collaboration have passed. 1 more day left to go. I’m tired.

Networking with new collaborators

Marta and I comparing quotes and cats - pic by Mandiberg / Flickr

Today we have finally got better about receiving external help. When I started to write about GIT vs. SVN as references for collaboration systems I checked out Jonah Bossewitch’s Versioning Dissonance paper which he sent me after finding my first post in this series and reading that I might be interested in these ideas. I was initially planning to find a nice quote from him, but ended up realizing he basically wrote what I had in mind, only better. Since he licensed it under a CC-BY-SA license I could just copy paste the Multiplicity and Social Coding part of the essay directly into the book. Jonah will probably go into Booki edit it a bit tomorrow, but it is already a very good contribution to the book as is. By the way Jonah is involved in the pretty astonishing work done by NY based geeks hacking for Haiti, read about it on his blog.

We also got a piece about Anonymus from Patrick Davison. Jon Cohrs, whom I originally know from Eyebeam and who now lives in Berlin joined us too and worked with Michael on some of the pieces. Sophie the copy editor joined in person too and helped me edit some of the definition chapters.

My good friend Ela Kagel from Upgrade Berlin who’s one of the curators of this year’s Transmediale was today’s guest of honor. She quite elegantly blended in. It was largely due to the fact that by this morning we knew we are in pretty good standing and that we can allow ourselves to better brief her about what’s going on. Ela decided to write a chapter for the Futures section of the book titled Collaborative Economies and by the end of the day the chapter was pretty much done.. As a teaser for it I’ll quote one of the quotes she used:

“Cities without gays and rockbands are loosing the economic development race.”

Richard Florida from The Rise of the Creative Class

It seems like finding sexy quotes has assumed some game mechanics in our process with Marta constantly trying to one-up me with great quotes. Quotes are great, you get both a sound byte, an amusing pause and some social capital by having smart people passively validate your thoughts. At some point Marta and I stopped competing on quotes and started comparing our beautiful cat pictures from Flickr (M vs. M).

So it’s bullshit, but in what way

From day one Adam and Martha were into having a piece that pretty much says Web 2.0 is bullshit. Adam took a pass at it and started with a few essential bulletpoints:

  • Incentivize data-driven network effects!
  • Integrate data-driven weblogs!
  • Syndicate A-list network effects!
  • Beta-test user-contributed web services!

A direct output from the Web 2.0 bullshit generator. We all took our turns giving feedback and context. Mike helped integrate it into the history section and I ended up working on it a bit myself. It seemed like we all agreed it’s bullshit, but each of us had our own reasons. I was glad to see we have finally came to a disagreement that while Web 2.0 is bullshit, Web 3.0 is bullshit too. (it might sound like a rant, but it ended up being a pretty well articulated point)

One more day to go, we are going to make it. For real!

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Collaborative Futures Day3: Who is I?

It has been another intense day of recursive collaboration at the Collaborative Futures book sprint here in Berlin. Currently at around 23,000 words. Not bad for just 1, 2, 3 days…

Attribution

The people in the room have quite strong feelings about concepts of attribution. What is pretty obvious by now is that both those who elevate the importance of proper crediting to the success of collaboration and those who dismiss it all together are both quite equally obsessed about it. The attribution license we chose for the book is CC-BY-SA oh and maybe GPL too… Not sure… Actually, I guess I am not the most attribution obsessed guy in the room.

Scale

We had a parallel sushi sprint going on. I should work on my rolling skills...

We had a parallel sushi sprint going on. I should work on my rolling skills...

Another somewhat illuminating anecdote is that we have some parallel scale issues. We were joined by Michelle Thorne (Creative Commons Germany, Open Everything, Atoms and Bits) and by Mirko Lindner (OpenMoko, more…) who were invited to help us with writing. These are super interesting and talented people who I would love to spend time with. But today there was just no way it was going to happen. Apparently two days were enough for us to construct such a tight process that we could not allow ourselves any distractions.

It seems that the tight time constraints serves as a reverse factor for participation scale. We are so invested in the process that we are reluctant to spend time in coordination and assimilation of new contributions into the overall process. This time constraint is pretty rare for these open collaborations and it definitely affects the actual openness to new participation.

Michelle and Mirko actually wrote about it in for the self-referential epilogue section: Outsiders: thoughts on external collaboration (scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page)

Schizophrenia

Yesterday I first ran into this issue of subjectivity. I was about to write “I actually more am interested in…”, but since we are writing collectively I asked the group how should I write this? Am I interested? Are WE interested?

Today this conflict got even more complex when I wanted to refer to a personal anecdote. Both Michael and Mike have already done it in their own writing but they were able to quote themselves as they were indeed quoting previous written sentences. In my case, this was a grim memory from my army days. Not something I have ever put on paper.

Do I say I? Who is I? We’re writing in plural, as “we”. Do I say “one of the authors”? That’s pretty lame and quite superficial, and come on… how many of “the authors” served in the Israeli army? Do I quote myself? It doesn’t really make sense, it is not like I am reappropriating a quote from a different context. Should I declare explicitly that I am switching to first person for the anecdote’s sake? It is a fucking anecdote, any writer will just write it as: “I remember…”. Is English just not equipped for this collective thing?

This was getting quite schizophrenic. As for now we left is as is – unstated. It is still bound to change as we have 2 days left. But all these conflicts more than frustrating they are simply fascinating.

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Collaborative Futures Day2: “Knock, knock.” “Who’s there?”

This is so much fun!

On the second day of our “Collaborative Futures” book sprint (read the posts about it and about day 1) I was still very skeptical about our process and our chances of success. But as the day progressed the project started taking shape and I’m actually even more excited about it now (and the same goes for the rest of us).

Most of our work today was actually heads on writing and from time to time some more lower level structure stuff. I focused mainly on definition issues and wrote drafted three chapters under this section tentatively titled: Sharing is the First Step Towards Collaboration, Coordination Mechanisms, Does Aggregation Constitute Collaboration?

My co-conspirators have wrote about assumptions, history, web 2.0 is bullshit, motivation, open relationships, and other people’s computers (revolving mainly around cloud issues). Pretty interesting writing, as this is definitely a group of pretty informed and passionate people.

We have also drafted a more detailed outlines to the whole book which would be the basis for our call for remote (ahm…) collaboration tomorrow, so definitely stay tuned for that.

Knock, knock…

One of the sections we’ve drafted was an unexpected yet somewhat obvious epilogue which will refer to some of the anecdotes that we are experiencing through this collaboration. I want to share one of them with you now. Around noon today we hear a knock on the door. Now let me just explain the set up, we’re working from a hotel room in a complex called IMA Design Village, on the 5th floor of an old (nicely) reappropriated industrial building with a jerky elevator and nothing to really point you at where we are. All of us were in the room at the time and we were not expecting any company. We opened the door and there stood a guy around our age who said he has heard about the project and he wants to contribute.

We were both amazed and mainly unprepared. He didn’t even say his name, he just said he had some ideas about collaboration and he really wanted to contribute. That was just completely great! But while we announced that the collaboration will be later opened to remote collaboration, at that moment, in that place we were completely unready for more people in the room. Adam (which the mysterious contributor said he met in some obscure music event in the city) have went with user-X downstairs to the cafe to discuss the contribution and he (still don’t know his name) will join us tomorrow writing a chapter for the book.

This was a unique experience of (finally) meeting the epic “anonymous user” in person. That faceless person that does not even have a username but is highly motivated and just wants to start contributing was standing there in-person at our doorstep. We didn’t know his name, we only knew his IP address–where he physically is: he was right there! Practically browsing our “collaborative site”.

And we? We were so Alpha, we were what early web people two decades ago used to call “under construction”. We didn’t even have an interface for him yet. It’s like he found a public yet unannounced URL for a future collaborative platform that was just not ready yet. We thought we were private, but apparently we were live. We were caught off-guarded with our first anonymous visitor, very online and just eager to log in.

If this will continue to be the spirit through the next 3 days I do expect to be continuously surprised. More updates on proxy collaboration definitely coming tomorrow. This is really great!

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Collaborative Futures, Day #1

The stickies on the wall after an intense day of presentations and discussions

The stickies on the wall after an intense day of presentations and discussions

Berlin is beautiful in the snow, though we get to experience it mainly through the window. Day 1 of the “Collaborative Futures” book sprint (more about what it is in my previous post) was fascinating and intense. I feel very privileged to have met this  group of talented people, all coming with strong experience and insights about collaboration, all with a pretty explicit free culture & free software bent. (I was weirded out by being the only one to nut be running Linux on my laptop)

As I suspected, this is not an easy task. After a day of intense work we came up with the (tentative) guidelines for the book. You can think of it as a table of contents but it will serve mainly as a general guideline for our writing this week. Finally, this will not be an exhaustive survey of the term collaboration (which would be a boring outcome), but rather a set of articles and insights (and possibly some predictions) about the past present and future of collaboration as informed by our experiences and interests.

Here’s the TOC for the first day:

  • Assumptions
  • History
  • Definitions
  • Process
    • Models
    • “Other people’s computers”
  • Problems
  • Futures
  • Epilogue

Other clusters of themes we have brought up and that will or won’t find themselves in the book are: motivations, politics (as in national group identity), money, autonomy, power, free culture, free software, trust, licenses, law, identity, reputation, attribution, scale, leadership, goals, org culture, structures, learning from mistakes, value and bullshit.

Check out the sites and relevant posts from my fellow sprinters: Mark Linksvayer (0+1), Michael Mandiberg (0), Aleksandar Erkalovic, Marta Peirano, Alan Toner, Adam Hyde.

our workshop room (my bed is behind that Ikea thing) and snowy Berlin from the window

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Towards the (week of) Collaborative Futures

During the upcoming week I will be working in Berlin with 6 super smart people (Adam Hyde, Mike Linksvayer, Michael Mandiberg, Alan Toner, Aleksandar Erkalovic, Marta Peirano) on writing a whole book from scratch titled “Collaborative Futures”. The format for this collaborative writing was developed by Adam Hyde and the Floss Manuals community which is devoted to extending the accessibility of free software through the compiling free and liberally licensed manual books. The books are published online and their PDF formatting allow for an easy print on demand option.

Our book sprint is not setup as a manual though, commissioned by the Transmediale (a Berlin based new media art festival) the only piece of information we will have will be the book title. Unlike a software manual (like the one for Inkscape) or a digital practice manual (Like the one titled “How To Bypass Censorship”) this one will not have a solid rational task to bounce off of. Beyond that, throwing “futures” into the mix makes our concrete collaborative basis even thinner.

None of us know what format we will choose but all of us come with a pretty extensive experience in collaborative work so I definitely expect it to be insightful. Some of the themes I would be interested in exploring are:

  • Bridging between “sharing” and “collaboration”
  • Possible lessons from code revision technologies (like SVN vs. GIT)
  • The boundries of networked productions (like the challenges to open source design)
  • Networking beyond enemy lines – when “collaboration” is a bad word (in the Israeli/Palestinian context it is often interchangable with treason)
  • What can we learn from Haiti?

Ahhh… thousands more are comin up as I write this… but my plane is about to leave so I’d better publish before I leave NY (writing this on my phone… hard!)

Last thing: This project is open to collaborations beyond the 6 of us, we will publish how to contribute and help probably on Tuesday morning.

Last call… more updates to follow…

Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Why we take shit from cats? (and love them for it)

Apparently, there’s a certain parasite in cats stool that makes us love them. What does it tell us about cats as pets? about LOLCATS memes? about free will?


Radiolab, a popular-science radio show and podcast from NPR had a show about parasites. The whole episode was great, but the one segment that really blew me away was about cats and this Toxoplasma gondii parasite.

The Parasite’s Problem

So for some reason, Toxoplasma gondii (let’s call it Toxo) can only reproduce in the guts of a cat. When the cat craps, that’s bad news for our friend Toxo. When a rat comes and eat the cat’s stool (never could understand these creatures) that’s even worse news for Toxo, as rats are rightfully afraid of cats and it’s enough for them to smell a cat to run as far as they can. How would Toxo find its way back to the kitty’s belly?

The Parasite’s Solution

Toxo's lifecycle, not recommended for pregnant women

Toxo's lifecycle, not recommended for pregnant women

You would think the parasite (being a parasite) will do something awful like cripple the rat to make it more vulnerable to cats, but no… It in fact does something else (arguably even more awful) – it crawls into the rat’s brain, and rewires things around there to make the rat not fear the cat, even love the cat, or rather lust… sexually that is! That means when a rat would smell the cat’s urine they would not run away, they would more likely run directly to the cat’s “loving” arms.

Mission accomplished.

But it doesn’t stop there…

It’s obviously bad news for the suicidal mind controlled rats. But apparently Toxo’s kitty-loving mischievous ways affect more than just rats. By being exposed to cat poop, Toxo infects us and gets us to do some stupid stuff, like being less patient, having higher percentages of reckless driving, even more likely chances of schizophrenia and what not? But like Radiolab tells us, there is a slight chance that Toxo makes us like cats more than we naturally would should. So the image of the schizophrenic old lady surrounded with dozens of cats has some scientific basis.

From Parsites & Genes to LOLZ and Memes

Prof. Robert Sapolsky tells us that (surprise surprise) the US army is interested in Toxo. Hmmm… I wonder why would they be interested in a parasite that would make a person do stuff they would naturally be afraid to do (check him out in this other long interview about Toxo).

LOLCATS meme, is it free will? Or is it Toxo?

LOLCATS meme, is it free will? Or is it Toxo?

But for now let’s think of the cats (or rather CATZ) that we’re mostly obsessing about online – LOLCATS.

If science has convincing evidence to imply that parasites hold the super-powers of mind control, would it be so outrageous to suspect they are somehow responsible for these unexplainable cat memes?

Cats are the only species to have domesticated themselves. Think of it, unlike any other domestic animal, what good are they to us? (Hey! Snuf, you know I’m looking at you) When I was young I read a science fiction story claiming that cats are actually much more evolved than humans.  They have transcended beyond the pursuit of self-fulfillment and have practically domesticated us to serve them. (or was it Toxo?)

Evolution’s rational is pretty straight forward in its the manipulative nature:

Cat belly = good,
more cat bellies = better,
humans feeding cat bellies with delicious food and keeping them fat and happy = awesome!

I am sure whoever is in charge for Toxo evolution could say:

“We have made it pretty far through hacking chain-cycle networks, then nervous system networks, why not continue now to communication networks?”

And what do you think?

It’s a new year, new decade, we’re all excited about new networks, new communication, new ways of making sense and decision making. I just wanted to throw this your way. Is it really free will that is guiding these emergent networks? Or is it Toxo?

YouTube Preview Image
Posted in in English | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

short+audio – my Open Source Design slides

In the second day of Wordcamp NYC last month I was asked to repeat my Open Source Design presentation in a 5 minutes version for the whole of the conference audience. I just realized somebody uploaded a video of it to YouTube, but since it’s a bit shaky and the image quality could be better I decided to extract the audio from it and post it with my slides. I am blasting through it, but I still thought you might find it valuable. Enjoy and definitely comment if you would…

Posted in Recommended Posts, in English | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

NewsShift: watchdog journalism with a long tail [Grant application]

Kevin Connor & Matthew Skomarovsky from LittleSis.org (an involuntary facebook of powerful Americans, collaboratively edited by people like you) & David Nolen and myself of ShiftSpace have teamed up and together with Eyebeam have submitted an application for the Knight News Challenge. It is a cross between what LittleSis and ShiftSpace do best, applied to a rethinking of social media meets local journalism. We’re trying to get the best of both centralization (of collaboration and databases) and decentralization (of data sources, contribution and consumption) – combine what makes both the centralized Wikipedia and the distributed blogosphere. From the application:

NewsShift is a web platform that adds a social research layer to online news stories. This layer, accessible from the news page itself, offers readers powerful tools to communicate and develop the story with additional information and insight — facilitating collaborative watchdog journalism.

Read on and if you find it worth supporting, please vote to help make this happen.

Posted in Recommended Posts, in English | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Subtle Zionist Occupation of Gaza through Google Maps

Questionable priorities of archeological facts on Google Maps, divisive cross-lingual links on Wikipedia… Are the ideological distortions of history on so-called balanced online services here to stay?

As I was working with Laila El-Haddad on the 2009 version of You Are Not Here, we were looking for interesting locations to feature on our mediated/dislocated tour. Using Google Maps, I was particularly interested in what seems to be an important historic location:

The Ancient Synagogue in Gaza

The Ancient Synagogue in Gaza

[Available at publish time, in case it changes, click to see on Google Maps.]

The Old Synagogue in Gaza

The ancient synagogue in Gaza picked my attention, I knew there used to be a Jewish community in Gaza (as I was well informed by the the Israeli right around the time of the disengagement), but I didn’t know about an old synagogue and wondered if it might be an interesting spot in the tour. But as much as I was trying I couldn’t find much information about this synagogue. I finally found that this synagogue was built by the Jewish community in the city 1500 years ago and was an important archeological find, especially for its mosaic work featuring the name “David”, in Hebrew letters.

This was indeed a spot worth mentioning but I was wondering though how come the other archeological relics like the Great Omari Mosque or even Napoleon’s Castle were omitted from the map. And how come the ancient synagogue in Gaza is mentioned on the map, while other synagogues like the older one (and arguably of a higher archeological importance) in Tzipori are not mentioned on the Google map.

Antedon? WTF?

It left me curious but not too suspicious, as many other synagogues are indeed mentioned on Google Maps. What through me was the mention of “Horvat Antedon” to the North of the Shati refugee camp in Gaza. I have never heard of Antedon and was wondering if there are any relics there. Well apparently Antedon is a city built by the Jewish king Herod in the first century BC. It is definitely not an important part of history and its location is only apparently not even known but is only guessed. There are no archeological artifacts to spot the location of Antedon and it is unclear how it made it to the map. Including the guessed location in the map more of an opinionated annotation (saying “Jews used to live here”) than anything else.

Hmm... Horvat Antedon, was it really there? Does it really belong on this map?

Hmm... Horvat Antedon, was it really there? Does it really belong on this map?

[Available at publish time, in case it changes, Click to see on Google Maps.]

Zionist Conspiracy? No…

Hey Wikipedia, is it "Palestine" or "ארץ ישראל"?

Hey Wikipedia, is it "Palestine" or "ארץ ישראל"?

I do not mean to imply any sort of “Zionist Conspiracy” here, not at all… I rather want to use this example to emphasize how the so called unbiased and technical description of the world which is a part of Google’s agenda is not and probably cannot be devoid of ideology. It is embedded in our attempt to describe the world, and no one is immune to it. Google still gets its maps from third parties, and that information is mentioned at the bottom of the map: “Map data ©2009  Mapa GISrael, ORION-ME, AND, LeadDog Consulting, Europa Technologies”. Mapa GISrael is describing the land from an Israeli perspective, just as much as the name definition and the sidebar on the “Palestine” article in Wikipedia links to the Hebrew article “ארץ ישראל” (“Eretz Israel” – The land of Israel).

As much as we might be disturbed by these instances of clear ideological decisions directing a so-called trust-worthy fact, I actually find them hopeful. It just shows how essential our critical thinking is and how it could never be replaced by cold alienated technology. It does however call for a wider media literacy and a critical reading of the map(s).

Posted in Recommended Posts, in English | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments