transparency

Later today, on my other blog, rhizomicon, I’ll be doing a post on the semantic web {web 3.0}, which stems from work I’m doing in the area of semantic web and social media. In my research this morning on information ontologies, I came across Debategraph, a collaborative visualization tool that maps ideas/concepts in the realm of complex policy issues. Here’s a demo video::

The Obama administration used Debategraph for their open government brainstorm last year. You can access the Debategraph here::

A friend of mine once convened meetings on watershed management in the SF Bay Area and this type of technology would have been very useful in the consensus-based planning recommendation model being implemented. While the loud and the cantankerous could attempt to be a thorn in the side at the public meetings, it would be harder to withstand the criticism of most of the other stakeholders. Nevertheless, there is the persistent wiki problem of how status and legitimacy affects deliberation and in this instance, policymaking. What I do like is how content can be uses and repurposed in online collaboration 24/7. I was thinking of semantic web implications in policy, but that’s for another time.

Maybe the State Department should explore this to flesh out transparency policy in light of the recent Wikileaks.

Twitterversion:: Thoughts on Debategraph visual mappings of ideas 4 transparent complex policy deliberation, used by Obama admin last year @ThickCulture @Prof_K

The Obama Administration is trying desperately to halt the dissemination of documents that they feel will jeopardize lives and diplomatic relations. Today, 250,000 diplomatic cables are slated to go public on Julian Assange’s Wikileaks site and this caught my eye::

“The cables are thought to include candid assessments of foreign leaders and governments and could erode trust in the U.S. as a diplomatic partner.”

The Obama Administration has been trying to limit the blowback for about a week, preparing foreign leaders for what I’m assuming to be unflattering depictions. While Barack has tried his hand at being an internationalist, the leaked documents could undermine his standing in the world. I think it really depends on what is in the leaks and how his administration chooses to handle this.

The State Department stated it will not negotiate with Wikileaks, emphasizing the illegality of publishing the documents, as well as putting “countless” lives at risk.

I find this to be an interesting situation, as the State Department appears to be framing today’s planned leak in terms of a “clear and present danger”. Mark Theissen in an August WaPo op ed has stated Wikileaks in such terms. What’s interesting to me is that the risks aren’t clear. How are lives is jeopardy? Who is in jeopardy? Will this be a credible cause of a military or diplomatic failure? The prior restraint of free speech is allowable for reasons of national security, but where is the line between sensitive information that has national security implications and publishing documents that increase governmental transparency?

I have a sense that these leaks may be more embarrassing than compromising national security, given the response of the State Department. A more forceful prior restraint intervention would be under a great deal of scrutiny and expected to have Constitutional validity.

So, if this is a tempest in a teapot and more about good foreign relations in light of candid statements, it would resemble Harriet the Spy {h/t LinnyQat}::

“Harriet M. Welsch is a spy. In her notebook, she writes down everything she knows about everyone, even her classmates and her best friends. Then Harriet loses track of her notebook, and it ends up in the wrong hands. Before she can stop them, her friends have read the always truthful, sometimes awful things she’s written about each of them. Will Harriet find a way to put her life and her friendships back together?”

I’m quite curious to see how this plays out, in terms of the nature of what is leaked and the Obama administration’s response.

Twitterversion:: Showdown b/t State Dept.& Julian Assange’s Wikileaks on intercepted diplomatic cables.Security breach or Harriet the Spy? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Social media have been getting employees in hot water {remember the Cisco Fatty meme and the suspension of a professor for Facebook updates expressing frustration} and even candidates for office cannot escape the wayback machine glimpse into one’s past. I don’t think the “culture of optics” is a good thing and while before the advent of social media it was easier to control content, that is no longer the case without having a chilling effect on free speech.

The National Labor Relations Board has now ruled that a the Connecticut firm, American Medical Response, illegally fired an employee, Dawnmarie Souza, for criticizing her supervisor on Facebook, engaging in online conversations with others workers. Acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon , for the board announced::

“It’s the same as talking at the water cooler…The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work.”

While many of the finger-waggers might think Souza et al. were engaging in a workplace facepalm moment and should expect negative consequences, the fact of the matter is that labour laws protect workers when discussing their jobs and working conditions, whether unionized or not. While Malcolm Gladwell may disagree, social media may provide an avenue for increased activism, including labour activism, which may be an issue if the economy remains in the doldrums and high unemployment creates a “buyers market” for labour.

Social media creates challenges for organizations to maintain their brand in an era of instantaneous and decentralized communications that can foster multiple dialogues outside of the control of the organization. These dialogues make the organization more transparent and can increase goodwill and trust. In fact, I would argue that the challenge of many organizations is to communicate both trust and competence with their stakeholders and social media can foster both.

What I think is going to happen is that organizations are going to continue surveillance of employees and focus on more rigorous screening at hiring. This won’t eliminate the thorny issue of what to do when social media fosters conversations that the organization doesn’t want to have or isn’t prepared for…which is why transparency’s a bitch.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thoughts on NLRB ruling stating worker complaining about supervisor on Facebook was illegally fired. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Earlier, I referenced this Wired article from last year on WikipediaScanner.  The site tracks edits of Wikipedia entries to known IP addresses within firms and organizations.  Wired has compiled a list of notable “salacious” edits from the past.  Here’s a news story discussing the PR and search engine optimization (SEO) implications of WikipediaScanner.

Vandalism And Wikipedia – 

While most edits are innocuous, some raise eyebrows.  

I’m interested in this because I feel that transparency will be increasingly important as Web 2.0 develops and we shift to 3.0, 4.0, etc.  Some of the things I’m working on is the implications of anonymity in social media and how it relates to business/organizational practice.  Some issues that aren’t well defined are:

• Policies regarding transparency versus secrecy (open source versus Apple)
• Managing public perceptions and organizational attitudes towards risk
• What are the proper features/applets (materialities of communication) that foster “collaboration and community” across different contexts?  Should these be staged?
• What are the preconditions for online communities be self-regulating?
• Nuances of online community culture self-reproduction

While anonymity and fluid identity was prevalent in Web 1.0, back when nobody knew you were a dog:

in Web 2.0, users are seeking the experiences of the 4Cs: conversation, community, commons, and collaboration.  I think in many instances that transparency facilitates the 4Cs through building social capital and trust.  Additionally, communitas and shared meaning systems, as well as the materialities of communications (applets, features, etc.), also foster/enable the experiences/practices in the 4Cs, but I don’t think all of these are invariant preconditions in all contexts.  

What are your thoughts on transparency?