Thesis Presentation at ITP Thesis Week 2010

 - by cathcw

Last week was ITP’s annual Thesis Week.  Every member of  the Class of 2010 presented their thesis projects with a Q&A session.  The faculty sat through five days of presentations, from midday to sometimes as late as 9 pm.  Its a real ITP rite of passage – the culmination of 2 years of exhausting late nights and long, fun, collaborative days.

I presented The Noisy Idiot Dilemma.  The paper is currently being graded and will be posted soon.

In the meantime, here is the video of me presenting the Noisy Idiot Dilemma at ITP:

Awesome Foundation NYC’s April Grant

 - by cathcw

This month, Awesome NYC went somewhere no other Awesome Foundation Chapter has ever been:  Reptiles.

AF-NY has so far brought you LAZORS and a movable pipe organ.  This month we’re pushing forward the boundaries of Awesome even further.  We bring you…. Iguanas.

Real ones.

Elizabeth, one of this month’s Awesome grant recipients up close with Mayor Bloomberg

Picture: Brooklyn Children’s Museum

Iggy and Elizabeth live at The Brooklyn Children’s Museum, and their home needs a makeover.  Specifically, a whole new home.  The $1000 from NY-AF covers all of the supplies and the labor and production could happen in-house.  The enclosure will be created in 2-3 months meaning Iggy and Elizabeth will holding their iguana housewarming party during the summer.  We’re getting a PLAQUE too. Awesome.

As ever, the proposals speak for themselves.  Here’s the original application from Iggy and Elizabeth’s rep at the Museum: Jarad Astin, Live Animal Programmer at Brooklyn Children’s Museum:

The Brooklyn Children’s Museum serves hundreds of thousands of visitors every single year, providing an opportunity for learning and play with a strong emphasis on the Natural Sciences, Culture, and Early Childhood experience. A goal for our Animal dept. this year is the construction of a new enclosure for our pair of Green iguanas (Iggy and Elizabeth), both of whom are used in exhibition programs. These animals are some of our public favorites, and in her 18 years, Elizabeth has put a smile on the faces of millions of visitors! (Awesome!). We’ve just come out of a large expansion, and greatly improved our Greenhouse experience – and what better place to construct an exhibit/ enclosure for these wonderful animals than there?! Our Live animal collection has been a core part of the museum experience for nearly years – giving inner-city children the chance to meet these critters up close, touch them, see them eat, learn about their diet and habitat, and open the mind to a general concept of conservation through this tactile process. Iguanas are depicted regularly on museum signage throughout the city, and it’s high-time we put them on exhibit in an environment that will help them flourish – where they will continue to do the “hard work” that makes them incredible ambassadors for both their species, the animal kingdom at large, and of course, the Brooklyn Children’s Museum! Both have been feature countless times in local news (both TV and print), and are utilized approx. 3-4 times per week in programming and exhibition. Truly AWESOME critters, doing AWESOME work!

Me co-presenting April’s award with fellow micro-trustee Elizabeth Stark

Picture: Steve Rosenbaum

Free Culture @ NYU

 - by cathcw

Preliminary work on end of semester paper for Copyright, Cyberlaw and the New Free Culture class:

Assignment:

Part of the paper will be focused on a concise but detailed history of the project, and will require research and references to primary sources. This means if you’re writing about a particular subject inside Wikipedia, you’ll want to describe and reference (via Talk Page Archives or individual snapshots of the pages) all the substantive components, arguments, and decisions that contributed to its current consensus. Similarly, if you’re discussing a general topic or event, you’ll want to detail its original inception, the ideas and principles that garnered it momentum, and so on.

What role does or did copyright play in your project’s history? What are the important legal decisions and relevant bits of copyright law that affect your project? How is it involved in the larger narrative of cultural production in a digital age?  And finally, to what extent does your topic implicate and problematize traditional commerce?

You will be graded on your attention to detail and understanding of the origins of the project, so it will be important to go beyond what the public may already know about it. I want to be convinced that you’re an expert on this subject, and you can demonstrate as much by going in-depth and delivering a narrative that might not have otherwise been heard.

In the second half of your paper, I want you to discuss your interaction with its community and the project as a whole. How did you find it? What were you able to achieve? What did you intend to achieve? What would you change if you did it again?

Preliminary Work

I’ve chosen to look at a local group, specifically so I can step away from my computer and meet people.  NYU has a strong history of participation in the Free Culture Movement.  I am looking at the Students for Free Culture group for this paper, and getting involved with the NYU Chapter.

In early April I met with their Vice-President to discuss how the group is run and the challenges they face as a group working as activists on the issue of free culture.  More to come…

Thesis Week 7/8/9

 - by cathcw

A catch-up on recent Noisy Idiot Dilemma progress.

Week 7:

Midterm presentations this week to outside reviewers Lauren Marrus (Dempsey & Carroll)  and Eleanor Powers (Powers Media & Entertainment Consulting, LLC).  The task was to pitch to someone who aside from a couple of sentences in an introductory email hadn’t heard of your project.  Feedback was surprising: “this is such a huge, huge problem, I just can’t even begin to see how you’re going to solve it.’  Takeaway from that: super glad to hear it’s thought of as a huge problem, I’ve been told the same thing by many others, but good to hear it again.  As for the second part – it’s impossible to solve, but by studying these groups, I hope to at least propose some steps to optimize parameters to enable less disruptive online discussions leading to more effective group decision making.

This week was also hugely useful to see people’s reactions to your work for the first time – need to work on better slides.

Week 8:

Tackled the ‘better slides’ issue.  Samples here:

The two slides above show the current color scheme – feedback was positive in class, as ever – I very much appreciate all feedback on this.  Any suggestions gratefully received.

I used the rest of my presentation time to show the class the ten groups I am focusing my research on:

I included some screen shots of some of the online conversations to show the class the kinds of interactions I’m studying.  Collective Storytelling class last year really hit home with the point that when you are doing a long term project (eg a semester in length) reporting back to the same group of people each week, its important to bring them with you, to keep them appraised, and to make it interesting for them.  That way the class interactions and discussions are more fulfilling and useful.  Its a challenge when you are so absorbed in something to explain it each week in an innovative way – but its a good skill to work on.

Week 9

Spending time this week working on the 5-page mandatory thesis report that each of us have to submit.  Sent first draft to Katherine for comment.

In addition, useful feedback from Thomas last week prompted me to really consider the scope of what Noisy Idiot behavior comprises.  Its not trollish behavior, rather – its behavior outside a social norm, that while still within the bounds of group behavior makes others uncomfortable and is disruptive.  Usually personal attacks are considered trollish, so what about attacks to people’s arguments. Whitehouse2.org makes the difference between the two, the former is not ok, the latter is.  From their rules page (http://www.whitehouse2.org/about/rules) :

‘What is a personal attack?

This is okay: “That’s a dumb idea.”

This is not: “You’re an idiot for suggesting such a dumb idea.”

See the difference? You can say an idea or proposal is a bad idea (hopefully more eloquently than simply “that’s dumb”), but it’s not okay to attack a person.’

So often though, there is a blurry line between the two.  When I observed the Noisy Idiot behavior in the Debate Europe forum last year, it was impossible to uncouple the two.  This research therefore, will not be based on a black and white set of criteria of what constitutes Noisy Idiot behavior and not.  Instead it will be a loose fitting trending and analysis of some basic Noisy Idiot behavior characteristics:

  • loud
  • upsets others
  • not so egregious though to be kicked out as a troll
  • quick to attack
  • single issue focused

Hope this clarifies matters.

To conclude this week’s round-up, huge chunks of work at the moment is simply detailed conversation analysis, which isn’t ready to be posted yet – suffice to say, am really enjoying being completely absorbed in these online groups.

Finally – the Noisy Idiots Ning group has been hit by uber huge amounts of spammy comments, I haven’t had time to clear, so please excuse and I’ll let you know when its back on form.

Thanks.  See you next week. Catherine

Looking back (not too far) and looking forward

 - by cathcw

Comments on recent reading for @mecredis’ Copyright, Cyberlaw and Free Culture class this evening….

Fred’s class is a big ongoing history lesson for recent history, where 5 years ago often seems a real long way back.  Since January, we’ve romped through topics such as the Statute of Anne (ok, that’s pretty ancient), the concept of fair use, the DMCA, Eldred, Google Books, TOR, Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman, Wikipedia, and we’re still going…

This week we read Professor Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks – Chapter 3: Peer Production and Sharing.  There’s only one small part I’m going to comment on this week, and it ties back to the “jeez , history just got way less dusty than I’m used to” point.

At the end of the chapter, there is a short discussion of spectrum policy.  Professor Benkler explains the concept of a “spectrum commons” and the fact that WiFi sat in the realm of “low-power devices like garage openers and the spurious emissions of microwave ovens.” 

Now, unless you have been locked in a garage or had your head in a microwave oven over the past week or so you can’t have missed the ginormous amounts of press on the recent publication of the FCC’s Broadband Plan.  The Plan addresses the issue of spectrum directly and according to the NYT, the FCC hopes to “free up roughly 500 megahertz of spectrum, much of which would come from television broadcasters“  (NYT, 03/12/10).

Spectrum is but one of many issues to be looked at as we try to improve the provision of broadband to US citizens, open access and increasing competition for example being of critical importance.  I mention spectrum in this post specifically though to highlight how the history Fred is telling us about is very much evolving and changing.  The fact that a piece published 4 years ago that are studying as ‘history’ is authored by someone who is in the press this weekend on these issues again, being debated, and considered – and of seriously critical importance: its great. I’m struggling for the right phrasing, but essentially, when we study history, it helps us to learn and contemplate, and really think about the issues raised if the lessons pop. Happily – right now in this field, these lessons are snap-crackling at the moment.

Strong but Gentle?

 - by cathcw

A recent conversation on a plane had me re-thinking @cshirky’s Rant About Women and reminded me of the importance of @kio_pio’s When Strangers Meet discussions…

I took a plane ride the day before yesterday to Miami.  Before take off I noticed an empty middle exit row seat a few rows ahead of me.  As any traveler knows, this is prize real estate in economy.  With the stealth-like moves of a hunting puma, I slid across the aisle, and geared up to pounce.  Mustering my sweetest polite Brit-ness, I inquired to the man on the aisle if anyone was sitting there.  And – well, he replied rather gruffly to me, pretty much informing me it was free but…. he didn’t want me to sit there.  I was mortified, normally people usually love for me to sit next to them. I just stood there, guppy-like for a little while.  The air stewardess hustled me out of the aisle, and I had no real choice, nor him, other than for me to plop in right in the contested middle seat next to him.  My bottom lip was out, I was dejected, and a bit offended.

His wife was in the other seat next to me. I looked at her, and in the manner of someone who hates to have disappointed, or offended, I spoke to her.  Something germane along the lines of “oh I wish I wasn’t going home” in the hope of warming the Siberian winds blowing at me from the other seat.  She replied, and we began to exchange a little chat.  I apologized for the kerfuffle over the seat.  “Don’t worry” she said as we took off, “that’s the worst you’ll be told off about this.”  I smiled, feeling about 7 years old and wondering how the middle exit row seat had started to feel strangely like the naughty corner.  Then, something started to happen that amazed me.  Its the reason I’m writing this post. The lady next to me and I began to talk. We talked quite a lot actually.  And I came away from the conversation thinking of Kio Stark’s When Strangers Meet class, and Clay’s recent rant about women.

Turns out  that despite a 30 year age difference, we had some things in common: lived in the same place for a while, both in creative places work-wise, and had similarities in our non profit work.  We began to talk about my recent work for Human Rights Watch and the topic of maternal mortality and her work on parenting classes in underprivileged areas.  She had a very soft voice, and warm lines around her eyes.  I listened to her as we moved from mere information exchange to thoughtful and thought-provoking conversation.  She told me of the feelings of a mother towards her child, the fears and the weight of being completely responsible for another, and wanting to do the very, very best for this little person.  We discussed how to connect people through this shared role of motherhood.  Since beginning this HRW internship, working on this issue, of course I’ve felt hopelessly out of depth, having never been a mother, I mean – yes, am great on the social media stuff, but the content of the campaign, I feel woefully incompetent to comment sometimes.

This is where I got to thinking of Clay’s comments about women needing to be more vocal in their talents, in promoting themselves, these thoughts swam in my head mingling with recollections of discussions with Kio about fleeting relationships formed with strangers, and their sometimes incredible significance.  In the the space of 45 minutes (and one slight altercation with her now sleeping husband) we had become sharers of intimate, close and thoughtful conversation.  We spoke quietly, yet with excitement – there was a connection.  She spoke to me of relationships and marriage. She was wise, and smart.  We moved to religion, and even politics briefly.  And I wondered, do men do this?  Or is this kind of connection unique in its quietness, gentleness and subtlety to women? Is this a kind of alternative to the self aggrandizing promotion type-behavior that Clay discussed a few months ago?  Is it just as powerful and effective?  I don’t necessarily know, but in that conversation I was reminded of the grace of women and how we connect through a myriad of commonalities.  She asked me if I had read “Eat Pray Love” as she pulled it out (a book that makes me want to simultaneously love and hate Elizabeth Gilbert for her discussion of the female psyche).  I smiled, and pulled out her sequel “Commitment” from my vast purse.  They sat on our laps as we continued to discuss, just as Gilbert does, love and relationships, family, children and careers.

As the flight drew to an end, her husband began to thaw a little.  Maybe because he heard snippets of our conversation and had hopefully realized, that although I was lacking a little in etiquette sometimes, I was really pretty alright.  He needed a pen to fill out his customs form, I proffered mine.  With few words, we slowly began to interact.  As we fastened our seat belts for landing, he turned to me,  and began to speak.  “I’m sorry if I was a little gruff earlier.  You know, my daughter would have done exactly what you did with that seat.  You doing that reminded me of her and when she does stuff like that it sometimes embarrasses me.  I think I aimed that embarrassment at you.  Our generation aren’t like yours in that way, you are all such go-getters now.”

His honesty threw me for six, and prompted me to reciprocate with an apology to him for not asking the stewardess before switching seats, and in not doing so, had deprived him of his option to object without me being thrown out of the aisle next to him.  I found myself saying that sometimes my generation perhaps missed out on the common courtesies in our rush to be go-getters.

As we left the flight, we exchanged names, there were lots of smiles.  His wife and I said how glad we were to have met each other.  It was one of the most significant conversations I’ve had in a while, the whole thing really touched me on many levels.  My old girls school had the motto ‘Valens sed Clemens‘  meaning ’strong yet gentle.’  We used to laugh at it at the time.  As a student body, we deemed it slightly reminiscent of a deodorant slogan.  Yet, perhaps it was more right on that we realized at the time.

From my minor self aggrandizing jerk behavior (otherwise known as go-getter behavior), in seizing that seat, I learned again of the strength of the connection between women, and the differences between generations.  All over the contested middle exit row seat 9E.

Thesis Week 6 – Part 2

 - by cathcw

Seeking Advice…

As part of preparations for our upcoming midterm presentations on Monday March 8, we were instructed to speak to three people who were knowledgeable in our subject area.  I had already spoken to Clay a few weeks ago in detail to discuss the outline of the project.  Last weekend I ran Tom Glaiyser at the Digital Media and Policy conference at Columbia’s School of Public Policy.  Tom is a Knight Media Policy Fellow at the New America Foundation with expertise in media policy reform.  We met when I first presented Noisy Idiots at NYU’s Participation Camp at ITP last summer.

I asked him about:

a) people/papers on analysis of group conversations; and

b) possible research methodologies I should be implementing to investigate Noisy Idiot behavior on the 10 websites I am studying.

Tom came back with a raft of great resources to look at including:

  • Marc Smith (newsgroup analysis) – specifically, I’m getting hold of his Communities in Cyberspace book.
  • Warren Sack (known for his work on the analysis of very large scale conversations (VLCS), I’m going to begin with his paper on discussions in an Open Source Software community)
  • Martin Wattenberg (Visual Communication Lab at IBM Research) and Fernanda Viegas’ work on Wikipedia

In addition Tom gave some helpful suggestions on how to analyze behavior in online conversations, he also mentioned already existing tools such as DISQUS and INTENSE DEBATE, and that the slashdot/DailyKos style of moderation is more widely available.

Thanks Tom!

Thesis – Week 6 Part 1

 - by cathcw

Places to look for discussion

Thank you thesis class for the suggestions today in class for where to look for lively discussion.  This week I’ll be looking at:

  • DMCworld.com – discussions around DJ-ing and the World DJ Championships
  • World of Warcraft forums – worldofwarcraft.com
  • Additionally – World of Warcraft wikis: wowwiki.com – information on WoW
  • Urban Baby and Park Slope Parents
  • 4Chan – does anonymity result in Noisy Idiot behavior or lead to trolling?
  • Chowhound.com for foodie discussion
  • Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village/Atlantic Yards – sites discussing proposed real estate development issues/residents committees
  • Streetsblog.org
  • Victims of Bernie Madoff groups
  • Wall Street bonuses discussion groups.

There’s a lot to be looking at there, and am now confident the 10 groups I’ll be studying will be suitably diverse in their subject matter.  The main issue I had last week was finding groups with lively discussions that were not just groups about political issues.  In addition there is enough variety in the level of moderation of these site for my studies.  Final list coming and a research plan coming soon….

Thesis – Weeks 3/4/5

 - by cathcw

Week 3 – Discussion with @cshirky

This week I discussed with @cshirky my concept to attempt to undertake some actual experiments and testing for this project.  I realized having spoken to him, that this was quite an ambitious idea to execute in just 12 weeks.  It takes longer than this for behavior to change, and I need time to research tweaks, ideas, concepts to integrate into already-existing group rules, before I even reach the testing stage.

Instead, he suggested picking 10 diverse discussion groups/forums.  Observe them, find trends, and look for patterns.  Having done that, I’d be in a position to present a detailed study of behavior patterns within online groups.  This idea appeals to me, specifically choosing 10 diverse groups, my aim is present research that people from many different sectors would find useful.  Also – from a interest point of view, it makes it fascinating for me to research.  Feedback from the class indicated this was a good change in tack, with the additional suggestion of finding a ‘control group’ where there is lively debate, discussion, decision making that takes place successfully.

Week 4

I took the NY State Bar Exam this week – sadly no Noisy Idiots time, just torts, evidence, crim pro etc.

Week 5

The selection of ten groups to study is well underway and will be presenting them in class tomorrow. The list is subject to change.  I want to select groups from a variety of subject areas such as politics, music and the arts.  I also attempted to pick groups with a variety of control mechanisms – some requiring registration, some heavily moderated – others not.  Any suggestions for other groups to study would be very much appreciated.

Tea Party Patriots

This is a fascinating group to study, the Tea Party is in the press a lot recently following Sarah Palin’s appearance at National Tea Party Convention in early February.  According to an article in the Economist on February 11, where “Much of the Nashville event was devoted to teaching the fired-up newbies practical skills, such as using Facebook and Twitter to spread the word, raise money and get out the vote … “  I anticipate lots of group discussions aimed at working together, to make decisions and reach consensus from grass roots Tea Party Groups.

Debate Europe

I want to revisit this group I studied initially for the first Noisy Idiots Dilemma paper.  Specifically because it is an example of a heavily moderated forum, with strict user registration requirements, with a substantial amount of single-issue Noisy Idiot behavior.  I’d also like to see if anything has changed there since this time last year.

Music Discussion

An example of where people seem to get along – a harmonious community, how do they do it?  Is it because subject matter is really not contentious?  I’d like to explore further.

White House 2

Jim Gilliam’s site, with very novel ways of optimizing group discussion, an example of people attempting to reach consensus on issues, with very effective moderation techniques – having spoken to Jim he’s a knowledgeable resource on dealing with Noisy Idiots.

Not Yet Ascertained Open Source Program Forum

I’m currently reading Steven Weber’s The Success of Open Source, and very much want to study an open source programing forum, however I need some advice from some techie-er members of the class than me,  @thomasrobertson, will be speaking to you tomorrow!  Open source program communities are quite unique in how they work together to build something and refine it – and they evolve in ways that are fascinating in terms of group interaction online.  They’ve also been around for a while.  This linux forum is an example.

Final thoughts:

In the next week, I anticipate finalizing the ten groups and complete the proposed analysis model to use.

Awesome Update

 - by cathcw

Awesome Foundation NYC awarded their first grant!

Awesome NY have made their first selection!  It was tough NY – you completely blew us away with amazing incredibly brilliant ideas.

But – this month, for our inaugural grant, we’ve picked a LASER TWEEZER that makes amoebas eat bacteria.

Awesomeness to the MAX.

No – really, its a laser tractor beam that prods amoebas.  We’ve awarded January’s $1000 grant to Ben Dubin-Thaler’s Cell Motion BioBus.

We celebrated with Ben at the First AF-NY Award Ceremony on Monday February 8. The BioBus was there too, and Ben’s intern from the Frances Perkins Academy in Brooklyn who will be working on the project.  We had a great evening.  Elizabeth Fuller covered the event – pictures and report here.

More on the BioBus:

The BioBus is a mobile science laboratory. Students on board explore the world around them with research-grade microscopes, and make their own discoveries under the guidance of professional scientists.  The BioBus has proven to be an innovative, effective, and attention getting vehicle for science education. Ben has been named “New Yorker of the Week” by New York One and have been recognized in regional, national, and international press for this innovative approach to bridging the “science achievement gap.” A laser tractor beam will be an awe-inspiring addition to the BioBus’ repertoire of excitement generating yet sophisticated tools and experiments.

We’ll let Ben do the talking, here’s his original proposal:

“How many projects are part lightsaber and part Magic School Bus combined into an awesome science adventure? First, I will build a laser tractor beam on board my BioBus. Then, during normal BioBus school visits, students and teachers from underfunded schools in the Bronx and across the country will perform their own experiments by poking, prodding, and perturbing cells using the tractor beam. I will document and publish the construction process in an open-source science education journal, allowing schools and science nerds around the world to build tractor beams of their own.

Every time someone uses the laser tractor beam to hold a bacterium still while they produce a movie of cell division, and then feeds those bacteria to a ravenous amoeba, they will have no other choice but to blurt out, “Awesome!” With extensive experience building laser tractor beams and as founder of the BioBus mobile science lab, I am the only person in the world prepared to do something this awesome.

I started the Cell Motion BioBus two years ago after finishing my Ph.D. at Columbia University. While at Columbia, I built two different laser tractor beam systems (a.k.a. laser tweezers) for my research on cell move, one of which is currently used in the undergraduate physics lab. After graduating with honors and building the BioBus, over 10,000 students at 50 schools across NYC and the country have come aboard our hands-on, high-tech, microscope lab and computer classroom. I’ve been told the introductory video on the BioBus website, http://www.biobus.org, is pretty awesome, so you might be interested in checking that out. Do-it-yourself experiments like building an economical laser tractor beam is possible because of breakthroughs in inexpensive, powerful diode lasers (e.g. skylasers.com).”

Ben will also publish his protocol for building a cheap laser tractor beam via the open-source PASTE project journal.