Wiki, Wiki, Wiki, Wiki

Remember Trans Europe Express? They had some big hits in the 1980s, including a song with the refrain “”Wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki.” Too bad they were not around long enough to enjoy the fruits of their labor….

Lets talk about wikis, who should contribute to them and what is the best way to manage mass collaboration. It’s not easy. Quite frankly, I have been impressed with the knowledge of many wiki contributors. They get it. And, they seem to research their topics before committing to the Web.

Having said that, I would never – ever – rely on a wiki as a primary source of information. I would never reference a wiki, base a thesis on a wiki, or overstate the information obtained through a wiki. I blame my legal training. But, it is important to know that the source of important information is an expert. Life is complicated and the decisions we make rest on the facts. The Web 2.o has opened a world of possibilities with regard to having access to information. During the past few months, I’ve been in wiki mode. But, I haven’t found information that is not otherwise available as a primary source.

I don’t think wikis should be exclusive to experts. If that were the case, they would become a redundant source of information. But, maybe they should include an attribution. I’m not trying to contact the wiki authors, but, if history is any guide, asking people to verify their claims is one way to en sure that you receive the highest level quality work. In turn, we would establish a solid floor for wikis, and, people like me, that will still seek the primary reference, can at least feel like they are at a more solid starting point.

 

Hide and Go Search

I’m sure there is an outstanding quote – somewhere out there – that would illustrate what I’d like to say, beautifully. How about, “There are two sides to ever coin.” The attribution escapes me, but these are words to live by for someone that considers himself or herself a communicator. Several weeks ago, I blogged on Search, John Battelle’s book on Google and how the company (and its rivals) redefined the world of business.

How should we think about search? As the consumer, search is liberating. You simply don’t have to be bothered with anything you don’t want to be bothered with. Through the power of search, you can go directly to those things that are of most interest and find opinions that resemble yours. As the owner of search, Google for example, you own perhaps the most powerful culmination of human thought ever available. Everything we care about and think about is part of our search. And, while we may thing of certain items as predominate and others as experimental, to Google and other search engines, it’s all the same. If you search for one item because you are an expert in the filed and it occupies a large part of your professional time, it does not ignore the other items, small and perhaps contradictory, of the primary interest areas.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post called “To Lie or not to Lie.” At the time, I was thinking a lot about search and whether consumers should experiment on the Internet to protect their privacy. The idea was straight forward: if consumers could get onto the habit of breaking their patterns, no one could make assumptions about them as a result of search. For me, that would mean visiting site I normally don’t visit. Maybe the short movie site, Nice Shorts, or maybe a NASCAR blog, or maybe an ode to classical music that was rejected by previous generations because of its religious references. Put differently, should I search for things I don’t care about as often as I search for things I do care about – to protect my privacy? Any thoughts?

 

Living with a Long Tail

How often have you been out to dinner with a good friend and an obscure topic comes up and your bud, who you thought you knew everything about, reveals himself to be an expert on the subject. You settle back in your chair and listen as he talks about the topic in such detail that you wonder if he is living a secret life.

People are amazing. It’s not the obvious things that make life interesting; it’s the items that are more obscure. Several weeks ago, I blogged about Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. It’s a great book about how technology will create an infinite number of micro trends or markets that, taken as a whole, will be a driving economic force in the years to come. I’m over simplifying a great read, but the point is well taken: now, it’s ok to think small, as well as big.

When I first read Tail, my primary question was driven by the concept of economic constraint. Assuming that we are all as complex (and wonderful) as the friend described above – the quiet expert – how do we weigh our “macro” interests versus our “micro” interests? Anderson makes the point that the tail is basically infinite because all of us are now able to pursue our micro interests through the power of the Internet. But, what happens if we have to choose? Most economic theories assume that consumers are constrained by limited resources. Would this blunt the tail?

Maybe this is too far down in the weeds. Perhaps the real beauty of the Internet is that you can change you exploration and intentions instantly, satisfying both your greatest or smallest need.

 

Corporate Communications and Disintermediation

Disintermediation has been a hot topic in several industries over the years. Often the discussion is tied to the emergence of a new technology that makes a job function obsolete. Will blogging disintermediate corporate affairs representatives?

In January, I blogged about Naked Conversations, a book which I generally enjoyed. For someone that is new to the power of the Internet and Web 2.0, I felt like it was a good guide to the future.

But, Chapter 7, survival of the publicists, struck me as a bit harsh. Here is a basic premise: corporate public affairs representatives are awful people who hide information from external audiences seeking the truth. These people use bad language – that doesn’t make sense – they highlight information that no on cares about – they prevent the outside world from getting in contact with the real experts. Pretty tough stuff.

I think Public Relations people deserve a break. We are talking about a group of people that got into the business because they believe that it is important to provide information to stakeholders in a clear and concise fashion, not to hide the dirty corporate secrets from the world. And, many corporate affairs people have done a good job, one that the scientist or accountant or engineer might not do because he or she is not particularly concerned with the expression of an idea.

We all have or skills sets and our talents. And while I know that corporate structures have been criticized for their layers and isolated functions, some of them do exist for good reasons without sinister intent.

I have been working in corporate America for 15 years. My boss was responsible for public affairs, internal communications, government relations and corporate philanthropy. He has been in this job for over 25 years. Before that, he was a professor of English and history. He writes beautifully, finding the perfect word for every occasion. He was also a gifted storyteller, which I believe is consistent with all of his other strengths. He made an enormous contribution to the company, his colleagues, our department and our customers in both the consumer and business environments and I hate the idea that the nature of his contribution would be completely discounted as a result of new technology and the perception that he is nothing more than a corporate cock-blocker.

 

First and Last Post on 9/11

The first Chapter of We the Media includes a glimpse of the history of media, both mainstream and social. At times, I had to laugh because of the references to people who took ordinary steps, trying to figure out an aspect of technology, and the results for us is extraordinary.

It was worth the second read. What I missed the first time around was their discussion of September 11th, 2001, and how the event filled people with passion, grief, hate and a series of other emotions, which drove people to the Internet.

I spend a lot of time thinking about September 11th. Unfortunately, I was there. September 11th was my first day back at work after my first vacation in three years. I remember walking through the main level of the Trade Center and across the skywalk that connected our corporate headquarters, WFC 3, to the Twin Towers. Everyone looked relaxed that morning. Some days, everyone looked intense or stressed or late. But, that morning, there was a light-hearted feeling in the air.

I was in my office, computer on and coffee in hand by 7:15 am. There were almost 1000 new email messages in my inbox and I had my day planned around how many I could get through in the next 90 minutes. I was proud of my pace and was growing increasingly confident that nothing terrible had happened during my vacation and then, there was this hollow sound – so intense, so powerful – so unusual. I left my office immediately looking for an explanation and as I approached the main hallway that connected the North Side of our floor to the South Side, I woman ran towards me, shoeless. She opened the doors that lead to the elevators on the 50th floor and yelled back, “A plane just hit the Trade Center.” The doors closed and I was alone.

It seems like seconds later I was in the elevator myself, in my gym sneakers, clutching my handbag and my laptop, trying to count the number of times I had been told (since childhood) to take the stairs during an emergency.

The rest of the day was surreal. Hundreds of people crowded Vesey Street as I left the building and walked North on the West Side Highway. When the second plane hit, people were instantly frightened. This was no accident. And, when the Towers disappeared, we were all breathless…

 

“The Business of Life”

Nice to hear someone make a bold statement about how people see and feel about advancement in the workplace. The Business of Life blog points out that for years people have talked about success in terms of connections rather than expertise. I too have been surprised to hear friends and colleagues downplay the need to be good at what you do in order to succeed. In truth, I started to think it was a throw away line for people that were lazy. Sorry. It might sound harsh. But, it’s true.

BOL points out that people are still at the core of what we do and what we accomplish. I agree completely. No one can do it alone – and why would you want to? Learning from and working with other people is still the most important thing we can all do over time.

 

Clueless Manifesto

What’s really eating at the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto? Why so much anger? This is not a new topic on OTB, but it is becoming increasingly important for those of us that are trying to bridge the gap between the world of corporate communications and social media.

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and they say something so absurd, so over the top, that all consciousness leaves the room? How about Thesis number 10 of Cluetrain: As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in networked markets changes people fundamentally?

When I first read Thesis 10, it sounded as if the networked world has less respect for its neighbors than the corporations that love to hate? Suggesting that people are dumb, uninformed and disorganized without the power of an online, networked community is silly. People are smart and for decades have helped each other make decisions about products and services through word-of-mouth. Yes, I know, the Internet is a multiplier. That fact, I would not contest. If you are someone who needs a quantitative framework, you’re thrilled to share your thoughts with thousands of strangers and make decisions accordingly.

This message would go so much farther with a bit of refinement. And what does the last sentence mean? How does it fundamentally change who we are? It adds to our lives, definitely. It’s helpful, no doubt. But, does it change who we are?

So here’s one friend’s view on the tone of Cluetrain: the language is aggressive to be provocative and force companies to move faster. And, since companies have not done a great job communicating, Cluetrain’s approach is justified. Ok, maybe that’s the motivation. But, if so, it looses sight of an important fact: you get more bees with honey than you do with salt.

This conversation will continue and I have no doubt progress will be made as long is this conversation is treated like any other conversation aimed at progress.

 

The Final Chapter

An awful lot has been said during the past ten years about the “closed” culture of corporate America. Dan Gillmor points to it several times in We the Media, including in Chapter 4. Having spent over 15 years in corporate cultures, I feel obligated to share a few thoughts.

First, I don’t believe that corporations invest time and money in communicating with their stakeholders to deceive. In comparison, I don’t believe the mainstream media chose to change the nature of reporting to make their jobs easier. Organizations, particularly those that have been established for many years, have had their own evolutions. They are the culmination of decisions – large and small – and people with different visions. Taken together, you have the mind and the muscle that create the inner workings of an organization. In addition, the organization is shaped and affected by outside influences that it cannot control.

Can organizations do better? Of course, and so can you. With the exception of some well know organizations that have broken the law in recent years, corporate America has set out to deceive its customer or prevent them from voicing their views. It wouldn’t make sense. It would be like fine-tuning an instrument to perform to an empty room.

Like people, organizations have habits and if you have tried to break a habit lately, you know it ain’t easy. The conversation would be much more fruitful if this were the starting point. The accusations and contemptuous tone is wasteful. It does not create an environment where people trying to introduce others to the positive powers of social media can succeed.

And, here’s another point. Why not lead with a complete example of the benefits? I have yet to read the case where a “conversation” resulted in a big benefit for the consumer or the organization serving it. I’m not talking about the example where a company starts its own blog and nothing bad happens, I’m looking for a positive outcome. Learning about organizations that position themselves as innovators because they us technology in a new way is fascinating, but isn’t that about leadership? I’m looking for the chapter that helps me distill this further. Maybe it’s too early to make such a request. But, if that’s the case, isn’t it also too early to condemn?

 

Bernays Quote of the Day

“The public mind poses little danger and could be engineered through dexterous appeal to its instinctual and unconscious inner life.”

 

The Power of the Venue

I’m still thinking about the concept of gifting on the Web. Today, I bumped into an old friend who was, at one point, very active in fighting for human rights and against labor violations.

Nike was the company she loved to hate – at the time – and she seemed excited that Nike is now leading in corporate social responsibility. But, she hearkened back to her old mantra: it is absurd for people to think other people will work for minimal wage.

Well, how about no wage. Otherwise known as free?????