This is so exciting! I use Flickr to house my own photos and I'm thrilled to say we use Flickr at work, too, but what the Library of Congress is proposing is really revolutionary in that a very large, extremely credible and federal (!!) institution is venturing into the world of online community and social tagging and encouraging other libraries and other cultural institutions to do the same by using all that Flickr has to offer.
You can see the collection of over 3000 gorgeous photos (one set from the 1930s and 1940s, the other from the 1910s) here.
It's great for the LOC because they're getting free help with their metadata. It's great for everybody because everyone will have better access to more complete information about a particular photograph and be able to directly contribute. Very exciting! Have I already said it's exciting? 
LOC writes about it here and Flickr writes about it here. David Weinberger (who I found out from) writes about it here.
Change.org has a very cool feature called Presidential Matchmaker. I've been an Edwards supporter, but this is a bit of an eye-opener. The death penalty is really an important issue for me (I strongly oppose it). Of course, I realize most presidential candidates (or at least electable ones, it seems) are for it, so I gave Edwards some room. However, there was something about seeing it in black and white (or in this case, orange and green) that made me question my allegiance. In any case, I'm most compatible with Barack (go figure), followed by Dodd (who knew?). I'm slightly relieved that I'm not in line with Hilary (something I figured was the case) and disappointed I'm not more in line with Biden (as I still love him from the the Clarence Thomas trial days). Happily, all Republicans were nicely below the 50% compatibility mark.
If you plan to vote at all in 2008, I'd definitely recommend taking this quiz.
Well, more news in the Google/Jot world. As I continue to chomp at the bit in anticipation of Jot's new arrival, it's become very clear that it will become a part of a suite of tools along with Google Apps, which I've been playing with for the past month or so. Then I stumbled on this article, Jot Joining the Google Apps revolution and voila. Suspicions confirmed.
The article mentions that Google Apps is doing well in the small business realm, and I would argue that it's right up a nonprofit's alley, too. Because of such fair pricing (not to mention all the grants) and easy-to-use tools, it allows nonprofits (who have to spend less money on infrastructure because donors want their money spent on program) a way to practically leapfrog technology. The reference to "cloud computing" the article makes seems to be the next logical step in computer usage, and it's nice to see nonprofits able to take advantage of this. Combine what Google offers with Jot, Salesforce and Drupal and we're practically living on easy street. Of course there's still work to be done, but the work can be more about strategizing how to deliver the program online to the widest (relevant) audience.
I'm really excited about the possibilities, but I promise to never call this web 3.0.
In investigating the plethora of social media sites out there, I stumbled on this slice of genius. It's called NewsTrust and it's currently in beta. I've been looking a lot at digg.com lately and there are some things I don't really like about it. The biggest concern I have (and it's related to my other post) is that it doesn't quell the online media critic's cry for honest ratings. NewsTrust might just be the answer. In this great overview of NewsTrust, Steve Outing writes:
"...Newstrust's developers are building bias filters into the algorithm that drives the site. Every member reviewer of Newstrust gets a "member rating," which is an assessment of their performance as a reviewer. When administrators notice a reviewer that consistently reviews sources and articles with a particular political bias, for example, that reviewer's member rating gets knocked down. While the biased member can continue rating things, his impact on the overall scores is neglible, and his written reviews are either placed where few will see them or not shown at all.
Administrators actively look for reviewers who are trying to game the system and influence ratings toward a particular point of view (e.g., a conservative reviewer who regularly gives 5 stars to opinion pieces on Fox News while ranking New York Times articles with 1 star). Such people are then sent an e-mail with a request to comply with the non-partisan spirit of Newstrust and start reviewing content and sources objectively..."
Now the site isn't going to launch until early 2008, but its beta is already pretty impressive (not very attractive, but impressive nonetheless). Even though it's in beta, you can sign up for it and get participatory in a meaningful way. Oh, and it's not-for-profit. Sweet!
The Berkman Blog led me to a great exchange between Andrew Keen and Weinberge at the WSJ Online.
I'll let you read it for yourself. It's definitely worth it. From what I'm gathering, Keen thinks I have no business writing my little blog. Sure, I don't get tons of hits and if it weren't for my dear friend and geekgrrl soulmate Clare, I'd have virtually no comments, but that doesn't mean this doesn't add value to my life or may have some positive effect in the future. Do I want to write a book? Not particularly. But I do think I have something of value to say, so here it is. One voice in a sea of many... and I'm not hurting a damned fly.
On a related note, it's particularly amusing to me that this post should pop up on the WSJ (not only for the irony of the debate itself). I'd had a debate with several of my very smart friends (none of whom blog, so I'll just speak for them here) about Rupert Murdoch's potential purchase of WSJ and the downfall of media.
So my friends are upset about Murdoch's attempt to capture one of the last bastions of good journalism in America. I am not. They feel that it's crappy that (as one of my friends refers to him) "the dark overlord" just might be able to succeed in his quest for media domination. It's a travesty. But in my mind, it would only be a travesty if this happened 10 years ago. Let's say he buys the paper and editorially it goes south as his other papers have. Let's say he buys all the other wonderful papers out there too. I take real comfort in knowing that he can't buy the Web (at least not yet). To me it only seemed a matter of time before this happened. For years I've been railing against traditional media. In truth, I have a love/hate relationship with it. Hell, I have a love/hate relationship with Fox Network itself. Fox News? Booo. Family Guy? Yay! Network TV? By and large crap. HBO? Brilliant, enlightening, moving, stimulating, genius. But I digress... and that's okay, because I don't have a traditional publisher... only wordpress.
As I was saying, traditional media was bound to glom up into one big voice. Does anyone remember February 2003? Iraq! Mass Destruction! Believe it! Wow. I wonder how that would've gone down if a mature (like maybe 5 years old) digg.com existed. Keen's point is right on one level. Most of the people doing the news tagging, rating and commenting are the early adopters... tech and political junkies who feed off the stuff. This is why those top 6 blogs are top. But when the later adopters get in the game, the landscape will change. Does this mean that Paris Hilton will be the #1 post on Digg? Not necessarily. It means that it will be #1 on the Entertainment section, and there will be other stories on the Political section, etc.
But at least I won't be forced to have Paris on the front page of a paper or the first news story on tv when there's something more important to me, like presidential debates or subway fares increasing in my town. So fine, Rupert, go ahead, take WSJ. I didn't really like it much to begin with. I've got my blog reader and it does me just fine.
I stumbled on a new tool called Eventful the other day. I instantly loved it. You can demand your favorite performers in the area you live in and it's ridiculously easy to add new bands to your list of favorites. Of course, the social aspect is there... add your friends! add your family! And (of course) they have a calendar. But it's special because it's got a tag cloud with it. Ooooh, fun! But where's the map? Damn, it almost had everything 2.0-y.
And if you've just read the previous post, you won't be surprised to find this here too:
So here's a shocker... I like Facebook. Yeah yeah, I'm just as surprised as you are. Here's why I like it:
1. While it still has the initial networking ability of hooking up people based on their professional or educational affiliations (which I didn't like on its own), it's now open to everyone, allowing people from across networks to discover new ways to connect. So, you've got the beauty of both worlds.
2. Because it's not limited to just professional or educational affiliations, it can be a little more myspacey or yahoo groupey, without the ugliness of myspace or the exclusiveness of yahoo groups. So, if you want to start a John Edwards group, go for it... and you can participate in discussions that are a little more orderly than in wacky myspace... oh, and heck, you can also align yourself with Barack, too, if you're unsure of where your affiliations lie.
3. I imported my blog into my profile! Sweet. Maybe someone will actually read it! Seriously, though, it's a really convenient way for people to stay connected with what I'm up to if they're not RSS happy (which many of my friends are not).
4. Very impressive customer support. I did some weird thing where I had two accounts with the same email address and then I couldn't log into the new one (which is the one I wanted). I emailed help and boom, within a few hours, my problem was solved. When that kind of thing happens, it's as though the heavens open up, the birds are singing, and you're floating on a cloud. Do I exaggerate? In the case of customer support, I think not.
Here's the only thing I wonder about... the poking. I'm sure I'm not the first to think the name is a little odd. It can have the wrong connotation, no? Or perhaps I just have a terrible mind. It's a cute (if slightly random) idea. I'd just change the name. I don't know what you'd change it to, though. I just looked up "holla" in Urban Dictionary, thinking that'd be relatively safe. Boy was I wrong.
I love Barack. I do. I think he's articulate, sincere, his policies are right on and he's not (yet) completely brainwashed by Washington politicos. Do I think he's too green to be president? No. Do I think he's electable? No. Okay, granted, I'm a New England liberal who has her own ideas about how the rest of the country works without having actually gone out and talked with, well, 99.9% of them. But it seems apparent to me that this country just isn't ready to have an African American president. There's just too much racism, too much historical baggage and too much fear for it to be so. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong.
Now, Hilary's another story. I would love to see a woman be the next president. But not just any woman. Not that Hilary is "just any woman". Perhaps this is the problem, though. Ever since 1992, when she stood by her man during all the affair scandals, I had no respect for her. To me, she was staying with him not because she loved him, but for political gain. Every move she makes seems to be for political gain. I get that this is politics, but the difference between a good politician and a bad politician is that the former can at least fake sincerity well. Make me believe!! I want so desperately to believe that public servants have their (most powerless) constituents' best interests at heart. And yet, I still don't believe it for a second with Hilary. Yes, she voted for Iraq. So did Edwards. The difference is she never just said plainly "I screwed up"... she said she was duped. Come on... if I wasn't duped, how the heck could she have been? She's either lying, or she's not smart. And I don't believe she's not smart.
Then there's John Edwards. I actually supported Wes Clark in 2004, so I never paid too much attention to Edwards. Again, being a New England liberal, the southern charm was a bit lost on me. He was just too "cute". When he ran with Kerry, I was lukewarm. I wasn't crazy about Kerry for president (largely for the same reasons as I'm not crazy about Hilary). So while I voted for them, I wasn't jumping for joy.
Now it's 2007 and for the past few months, I've seen Edwards in action. Yes, I agree with his policies (like I do with most Dems). But the big difference to me is there's a depth to him that wasn't there before. I don't know if it was the trips to Africa, the personal difficulties he's gone through or the defeat in 2004, but to me, he's no longer "cute". He's real. He diffused the silly YouTube hair video by saying yes, of course it's fine that that's shown to the public. Freedom of speech, and he's human.
Did he vote for Iraq? Yes. But guess what,... he admitted he screwed up. Good. He's human. Hooray. That's what I want in a president. A smart, articulate, caring human who can admit to being human. And this is why I'm supporting John Edwards.
Oh yeah, and he's smart to be wicked tech savvy. Shout out to the folks in NYC who built his site on the arcos cms. Look at all those social media tools! Just to rattle them off, he's got:
43 things, myspace, flickr, youtube, egather, delicious, facebook, partybuilder and their very own fun grassroots campaign fundraiser (an example of which you can see here).