A friend sent me a link yesterday with the short description of “Intriguing…”

It was a link to Clay Shirky’s article Gin, Television, and Social Surplus and indeed it is an intriguing article where he sets out his initial thesis thus:

I was recently reminded of some reading I did in college, way back in the last century, by a British historian arguing that the critical technology, for the early phase of the industrial revolution, was gin.

The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing– there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London.

It’s not a new theory, however I’m not entirely sure it’s completely accurate. Urban life is not a new invention: Rome at one point is reckoned to have had 1 million citizens, and Athens had 300,000 citizens before it. Whilst they both had their debauchery, nobody has ever suggested that Rome needed wine and orgies in order to function as a city.

His parallel starts to get more interesting however:

If I had to pick the critical technology for the 20th century, the bit of social lubricant without which the wheels would’ve come off the whole enterprise, I’d say it was the sitcom. Starting with the Second World War a whole series of things happened–rising GDP per capita, rising educational attainment, rising life expectancy and, critically, a rising number of people who were working five-day work weeks. For the first time, society forced onto an enormous number of its citizens the requirement to manage something they had never had to manage before–free time.

And what did we do with that free time? Well, mostly we spent it watching TV.

I’m not sure the “wheels would have come off”, but there is no doubt that even people on very poor incomes have more free time than people of similar economic standing would have had for many millenia - if ever.

He goes on to talk about this surplus of time as something useful, interesting and powerful. His first example however directly contradicts my thoughts around The Vision Thing:

And I’m willing to raise that to a general principle. It’s better to do something than to do nothing. Even lolcats, even cute pictures of kittens made even cuter with the addition of cute captions, hold out an invitation to participation. When you see a lolcat, one of the things it says to the viewer is, “If you have some sans-serif fonts on your computer, you can play this game, too.” And that’s message–I can do that, too–is a big change.

Actually, it’s a change, but it’s not one we should embrace unless we say it’s the thin end of the wedge. That eventually something useful and interesting is going to happen and society starts working on interesting things. Clay goes on to talk about how if even one slither of that time of staring at the flashing box in the corner is used to do something productive, it means something interesting is going to happen.

Let’s say that everything stays 99 percent the same, that people watch 99 percent as much television as they used to, but 1 percent of that is carved out for producing and for sharing. The Internet-connected population watches roughly a trillion hours of TV a year. That’s about five times the size of the annual U.S. consumption. One per cent of that is 10,000 Wikipedia projects per year worth of participation.

I think that’s going to be a big deal. Don’t you?

To an extent I agree. I don’t know what 10,000 Wikipedia projects per year is going to look like, but there is no doubt that something, somewhere is going to happen of interest.

But what are those 10,000 projects? Do we have the creative ability to do 10,000 useful things every year? Do we have the will to do something more interesting than throw sheep at each other or spending our entire time photoshopping memes? Time will tell.

For some reason, Mephisto isn’t behaving on my server right now, so comments aren’t working. I plan to move the whole shebang over to Wordpress sometime “soon”. That said, I’d like as a gentle introduction back into me blogging here again about “Innovation in Software” (less ‘what is happening in Manchester’ in future), to talk about comment systems.

This cartoon from the excellent xkcd strip sums up my problem with comments right now:

The problem I have is this: on any popular system where users are allowed to comment, as the number of users able to comment without fear of genuine peer review increases, the signal-to-noise ratio drops exponentially.

In other words, if I and 5 million other people can comment on a YouTube video without any fear of us being reminded of what we said not just in the future but the very next time we meet a friend, we are more likely to be flippant, irrelevant, and “noisy” than if we knew people whose opinion of ourselves mattered to us were going to be reading that comment and evaluating it.

It’s why social network status updates and posted items are relatively sane and measured and why blog posts are more considered. We care about what the readers think, because what they think will have a direct impact on our future relationship with them.

So, whilst thinking about kagtum a lot recently (background if you’re unaware), I’ve been thinking about this problem. How do you allow for user comments without them descending into noise?

The “mission statement” for kagtum in its current form is something along the lines of “delivering relevant news and event information”, where “relevancy” is the secret sauce that gets quite complicated. How do we make sure every comment you see is relevant in order for it to stay within that mission statement?

I have a possible answer, but I need to keep it close to my chest for now. Normally my ideas are thrown out into the wind as being worthless, however my answer has a direct consequence on execution of a business plan. That said, if you come and meet me at an event and ask me, I’ll tell you what it is if I trust you. ;-)

On the back of my business cards I have 10 quotes which on discovering them the first time, I found to be something that resonated with me, and that I hope might resonate with potential clients, business partners and friends.

The first of those is a famous quote by E.W. Dijkstra that for me sums up the reason I got into the industry in the first place:

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”

I also recall Ted Nelson’s talk about Transliterature at OpenTech 2005, where he also summed up why computers fascinated me as an 11-year old learning to program the first time:

“I studied Computer Science to help change the World, not to automate trivial crap”

There is something bigger here in our industry we refuse to acknowledge. There is something deeper beneath the surface that all the talk of social networks, long tails and user-generated content doesn’t get anywhere near.

This ember of a notion has been inside me for a while now, and it’s starting to turn into a small fire. I don’t know where it’s going, but what I do know is that I’m now getting more and more passionate for “big picture” stuff. The kind of things that need investment and great people.

I’m rather pleased then, with all this “big picture stuff” going on in my head, that this year’s Turing Lecture is being held again at Manchester University and that it has just been announced as being given by James Martin, producer of the film Target Earth - note, not the 1950s B-Movie, alas! However, it’s big in its approach, and I’m looking forward to watching it just before Dr Martin gives his talk.

I still haven’t decided what 2008 is going to be about for me professionally, but I do know it’s going to be less about me and finding ways to reconnect to that Dijkstra quote in my work. The Turing lecture will be a timely reminder of some of the issues facing us - and maybe sometime this year those of us in Manchester can start thinking about how to work out some of the solutions. Maybe.

I’ve just decided “Maybe” is my new favourite word.

Happy New Year.

Tonight, the BBC finally got around to airing the RTS Huw Weldon Memorial Lecture recorded in September. The speaker this year was Anthony Lilley talking on issues relating to social media and ironically given the subject of his talk, no online archive of the talk appears to be available. For all the embracing of “The Me in Media” - as the talk was titled - and the power of the network, we on the network are not allowed to see it.

No matter. The point, the thesis, the element, is quite communicable: we the audience are now in charge. What’s more, Lilley makes a compelling argument that this isn’t a sudden and new development, but something that happened the moment the audience started to appear on screen from quiz shows to our scribbles being sent to Tony Hart.

The power of networked media is considerable, and it’s pretty odd to see a bunch of network TV executives try and grasp the content that they, their ideas, their employers and their money don’t matter much any more. Within 10 years, Lilley hinted that networks like UKTV which mostly show repeats will essentially be pointless with the advent of VoD and PVR systems being widespread. Within 20 years the people being asked to pay the license fee will have no real memory of broadcast media. Within 30 years… who knows?

I was minded of a certain cartoon and then thought about how the BBC Innovation Labs is on again this year. I wonder how daring the BBC and others want us to be. Personally, I think they’re just outright scared.

I’m currently reading Wikinomics and finding it incredibly engaging. I’ll write a fuller review when I get to the end of it sometime later this week, but I’m that enthusiastic I had to give people a bit of a heads-up before the weekend. The full review is likely to be long. This post won’t be.

To date, the only truly successful wiki has probably been Wikipedia - it’s probably the only one that the mythical ‘man in the street’ can name. In Wikinomics, Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams document an emerging trend and show that it’s not just wiki software that is describing the new spirit of collaborative development, but blogs, UGC sites like YouTube and social networks. It is the interactive element that adds value into the business, not the technical definition of what a wiki actually is.

Where the really interesting things are going to happen though are where collaboration happens between end customer and producer, and the middle men who connect half a dozen businesses to a single customer desire.

Outsourcing has reached a point where an industrial designer and a marketeer can design a product over coffee, firm up designs overnight, have prototype units being developed by a Chinese company within a matter of weeks, and support provided by an Indian company the day the unit goes on sale. The flexibility of this kind of out-sourcing is allowing start-ups to get very big, very quickly.

Some are beginning to realise they can even outsource the product design to the customer. It’s not just small companies either - major companies are seeing the value of a porous membrane between internal R&D and the rest of the World.

Vagueware obviously has a vested interest in this model. I haven’t quite worked out the dynamics, the money side of things and how we go about making developers take notice, but I’m hoping that others who like the idea of open collaborative design in the software industry will help work that out with me. I’m currently toying with ideas on how to reward those outside my business who directly add value to it. If you have ideas on how that can happen, you know what to do

I’m not alone. We’re about to enter an era of real businesses with real products being built this way. The knowledge economy is going to be very flat, with each of us having the ability to act as independent agents working on the ideas that interest us. Economically, this is going to be fascinating.

From what I’ve read so far, Wikinomics is a good introduction to how this new World is starting to unfold, and I think if you’re interested in these new models or if you’re interested in what the next 2-3 years of web application development is going to look like (if you’re a bespoke developer or designer, your future clients are either reading this book already or will do soon), you need to grab yourself a copy.

You can buy it from this link if you’re in the UK or this link if you’re in the US. Enjoy!

The most interesting observation from the last few months of Facebook usage for me, is how people manage their online identities: they don’t.

You can have multiple profiles and link them together in Facebook if you want. To my knowledge, nobody I know does this - everything they do just piles into one profile. In fact, I’m not even sure people know you can do this. Being completely open with one profile would traditionally be considered a high-risk strategy when mixing business contacts and personal contacts.

We’ve all heard stories about the graduate applying for a job at a top firm and being the perfect picture of potential leadership until somebody finds their MySpace page, complete with pictures of drug use, snippets from their starring role in a ‘Girls Gone Wild’ video and profanity-filled exchanges with friends. We are told that “They” don’t like this - “we” should be wary.

I think paranoia is more to blame for these warnings than reality.

We are no longer living in a parody of the 1950s. I don’t think that society was ever really as rigid as the films and documentaries make it look - where everybody calls each other by their surname and a tipple too many after dinner left you a social outcast, but even if it was real we’re leaving that mode of thinking about each other and quickly moving into an era where authenticity matters.

As a potential employer, I would rather know a new manager has an “interesting past”. It would help me understand his/her character more than pretending they were conceived a perfect model of professionalism.

I don’t know if the rest of the World is going to see things the way I do, but I know that Facebook and social network apps like it are making more people face up to the reality of dealing with people as they are, not how we’d like them to be.