Ross Mayfield's Weblog

Wiring the Wiki

The Wired Wiki project is really coming along.  The main article has over 100 edits from a diverse group, there are lots of headline suggestions and sanding of the deck.  So far, contributions have been constructive and civil.  Only exceptions so far have been from wiki vendors plugging or trolling (which is suprising given how they should, in theory, know the tool).

Today Ryan Singer started to share his Reporter's Notebook, so editors could source copy from his interview with Ward Cunningham.  We also split the Comments page with a Discussion page.

Edit this Wired News

Last time someone tried this it was a disaster, but Wired News has boldly put an article about wikis into a Socialtext wiki for anyone to be a Wired editor:

In an experiment in collaborative journalism, Wired News is putting reporter Ryan Singel at your service.

This wiki began as an unedited 1,059-word article on the wiki phenomenon, exactly as Ryan filed it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to do the job of a Wired News editor and whip it into shape. Don't change the quotes, but feel free to reorganize it, make cuts, smooth the prose or add links -- whatever it takes to make it a lively, engaging news piece.

Ryan will answer questions from the comments page, and, when consensus calls for it, conduct additional reporting. If there's something he missed, let him know, and he'll get on the phone and investigate, then submit new text to the wiki for your review.

Readers can also submit headlines for the story, and write and edit the "deck" -- a blurb for our front page and RSS feed that promotes the article.

To make any changes, you'll first need to create a free account at Socialtext.

We'll release the results under a Creative Commons license, and, if the whole thing doesn't turn into a disaster, run the final story on Wired News on Sept. 7, 2006.

To clarify, all people have to do is register to edit, a spam countermeasure.  This is of course different from the LA Times experminent as there is a clearly stated goal.  It will be interesting to at least watch.

Socialtext Wins Bowling 2.0 League Championship

Who says social capital is dead in America, or people are bowling alone?

Tonight, in a come from behind victory, the dark horse candidate in sudden death, with the league watching every throw, we triumphed over Facebook. The turning point may have been when Led Zepplin's "Whole Lota Love" came on, and the kids couldn't relate. A noble victory led by team captin' and league leader Erik Langner.

In other news, Julia really won the Web 2.oohh contest, but like I said, bullshit.

Bad Joke Popularity Contests

The Web 2.Ohh contest for who was the hottie was of course a joke.  Looks like our very own Julia French has won, 8,647 to 814 at present count.  For the record, I communicated clearly on my internal blog not to script to cheat, and I'm not sure where such enthusiasm came from.  But this is bullshit on several levels.  For one, there is no prize.  For two, contestants are not public figures who should not be thrown into ring without their consent.  Three, cheap traffic trick.   Sure, it is all fun, but did I mention this is bullshit?

Hot or Not should be opt-in, especially when others profit from it.

10x 2.0

The traditional venture capital invests disruptive technologies that provide a 10 fold improvement and generate 10x return.  However, Web 2.0 consumer internet companies are not based upon disruptive technology, but potentially viral models of participation.  The consistent pattern is sharing control to create value.

Measuring the disruption in performance terms proves difficult and is an opportunity for research.  I have not found a way to measure the lower cost (zero marketing budget) of user acquisition and lower churn through virality and network effects.

But you can measure the impact of disruption.  Craigslist cannibalized the Bay Area classifieds market by $60 million by 2004, when they had $6 million in revenue.  This is asymmetric competition against models that provide less freedom to communities.  Consumer internet startups generally require 10x less capital to get off the ground (although not consumer, Socialtext was seeded with only $5k and six months of sweat, as an extreme example).  Realizing a 10x return with a developed community and functioning business model should be a layup.

But if this model requires 10x less investment, the lingering question is how $1B venture funds invest enough.  Or how much time even a small fund can spend with its portfolio.  The IPO window remains practically closed and burdened with $2M in new SarBox operating costs making it less attractive.  M&A is out of control and potentially furthered by the need for venture firms to exit earlier to make the model work.

We are in a bubble, that is representative of our times.  It began with Google's acquisition of Blogger, and it might have peaked with the rumored $2B valuation of Facebook (hinting at the cyclical tip from consumer to enterprise).  I'm not sure there is a lack of failure in this bubble, or if we just need to give it time.  There definitely are more plays in each category (e.g.  well over 200 in social networking or social bookmarking, possibly over 200 funded in video search).  I've said for a year that this bubble is build to flip.

The problem is there are too many companies being created that have no aspirations to be companies.  Most survey the feature portfolio of tier 1 and tier 2 acquirers and are precision guided towards flipping within 18 months.  Many make no attempt at generating revenue and most that do generate revenue from the advertising of other startups, let alone demonstrating a business model.

A dirty little secret for those actually building these things into businesses is that generating community value takes time.  Beyond the blog bump and 53,651, a community that stays with you and grows virally is tough to achieve.  Today's successful ventures are twice as old as the 18 month window.  They were born when it was a shitty time to create a company, were largely either hacks cast out openly to serve an immediate itch and community (e.g. Blogger, Six Apart, Technorati, Newsgator, del.icio.us) or almost accidental creations that caused a business model iteration (Flickr).

Today the problem is microventures optimized to flip are flopping, but they are too small to see.  It isn't just that VCs are taking the risk of the bubbles.  For every funded company, there are 10 with the sweat and tears of entrepreneurs that fade to black.

This is not all bad.  We are in the risk business.  There is creative destruction with tight iterations that provides a base of vibrant innovation for the economy.  But structurally, this bubble is attracting increasingly less experienced entrepreneurs (and investors) chasing the wrong incentives. 

Deletionists, Networkists and Blog Sourcing

The argument over whether to keep the Enterprise 2.0 article in Wikipedia continues, in this incredibly rich discussion page.  Bear with me here, as the innards of Wikipedia may not be clear cut enough for the blogosphere's preference for individual voices engaged in disappating debate. Samuel Klein, the Admin who undeleted the article, explains his decision and offers an opportunity for understanding:

I'm going to post a set of instructions for all of you bloggers, on How To Criticize Wikipedia -- so that you can do it productively if you want to.  Wikipedia is one of those rare communities where eloquence, discussion, and an idea about how things can be better can lead to an immediate improvement in process and content.

This experience has helped further my understanding of core rules (Neutral Point of View, Verifyability and Original Research).  The process of administrating them is decidedly non-bureaucratic -- this is not Kafka, this is made of people.  And to SJ's point, while process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity, the openness of process execution and distributed decision making authority favor change.  Simple rules and open social interaction yield complex emergent behavior.

One man's complex behavior is another's philosophy.  Deletionism holds that the path to quality is through vigiorous defence of rules to keep articles out.  Inclusionism favors keeping and amending problematic articles.  User Pages tend to self-identify and associate with these philosophies.

In this debate, Deletionists have run up against what I'll call the Networkists -- a group of highly networked domain experts activated through blogs.  Most are only casual contributors, so far, and some have had negative experiences (and some for good reason) making reverted contributions.  If I had to offer a philosophy of Networkism, it is that the participation of domain experts in creating articles and debating their deletion increases the quality of the process, and most domain experts will not become core members of the community.  Now this is all fiction, but over time it will be easier for both Wikipedia to attract domain experts and for them to activate and self-organize, so there may be something to learn from here.

Many Articles intersect with networked groups, and in many cases those groups mean ill towards Wikipedia.  I see value in the role, not the philosophy, of a Deletionist, because practically they are the first and most persistent ones to debate against outside groups.  But unlike the Recent Changes patrol reverting vandalism, where domain expertise is not required, their activity directly excludes potentially valuable members of the community.

Blogs as Sources

A second issue which has arisen is the role of blogs as reliable sources, a guideline for verification and no original research rules.  While the guideline rightly suggests there is a difference between blogs (Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case by case basis...For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source.) -- media literacy of the blogosphere is under-developed.  Having an institution behind a blog is a traditional fact checking measure.  Other sources are reliable because there is an editorial process prior to publication.  But with blogs, this process happens post-publication.  A blog or a post cannot be judged reliable in isolation.

With the Enterprise 2.0 Article, verification is provided by an article in the MIT-Sloan Management Review, an HBS case study, a BusinessWeek article and reference to a Don Tapscott book.  But for some, this is not enough.  So I leave it as an open question.  Should Dan Farber or Dion Hinchcliffe blogging under the ZDNet masthead qualify as a reliable source, or is what makes them reliable what links to them say?

Enterprise 2.0 Re-considered for Deletion in Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Article Enterprise 2.0 has been restored and is undergoing it's second vote for deletion (or keep).  You can share your thoughts on this matter on this page.

This is not really an opportunity for a bunch of bloggers to blather in support.  Given the attention the article will get, it is a great opportunity to create an even better article about an important trend.

For me, this has been a fascinating look at the part of the process that makes Wikipedia work.

Enterprise 2.0 Re-vote

After the Wikimania panel on Enterprise 2.0, I rolled up my sleeves and tried to improve the Enterprise 2.0 Wikipedia article.  All that activity caught the eye of an Admin doing his job, who excersized speedy deletion.  Little did I know the article had already been deleted, primarily because it failed to meet the neologism criteria. 

At first, I was a bit shocked, as my work disappeared.  It also took a bit of effort to understand the rules at play and try to picture the process over time and scale.  While away this weekend, a minor blogstorm happened around the deletion.  Dan Farber and Jeff Nolan have some great wrap-up posts and David Tebbutt captured some emails that flew around.  But as I like to say -- blogs are a sprint, wikis are a marathon.

Articles that already failed an Article for Deletion test is a candidate for speedy deletion which any Admin can do for good reason.  The appropriate response is to first for clarification by the Admin who did the speedy deletion.  You can also request a History Undelete, which does not require a vote, to build a case.  But ultimately, in order to have the article restored, it requires a re-vote.

I had the history undeleted for the Enterprise 2.0 Article here.  I invite contributions to help make it more robust, and draw in more reputable and diverse sources that may help it meet the neologism criteria.  I think it is important to give it time before following the process for a revote, but express your opinions on the Discusssion page.

At one point every term was a neologism, language evolves, faster for some people, and the new becomes mainstream.  What's interesting is that Andy McAfee's initial Enterprise 2.0 definition (freeform social software adapted for business) still stands, but is being extended in consistent ways.  Jeff Nolan's insight that enterprise mashups are of processes, while Web 2.0 mashups are more simply data, is significant.  Vinnie challenges us further.  Dion Hinchcliffe offers up a definition of Enterprise 2.0 (richer than what I quote) as liberation:

Enterprise 2.0 in general describes the liberation of often previously inaccessible corporate information to be opened up to general discoverability, consumption, and reuse using a Web-based model.

Remember e-Business?  When the web intersected with enterprise software, a new front-end was accessible across firewalls, consumers learned to interface directly (while being "managed") with transactions that went straight through the back office and across the value chain.  Now think about how the web, and its people, have evolved.  It makes sense that the web will reinvent enterprise software again.  Participatory models, mass collaboration and the economies of speed, scope and span mashups afford will make us re-think process itself.  Part of it is the liberation of information, but most of it is tools that don't get in people's way.  Which especially matters when they are trying to work together.

Plazes Goes Mobile

Took a break in Mexico this weekend, literally locking my cell phone in a safe and not bringing my laptop with me.  Still catching up, but I had lunch with Felix from Plazes today (disclosure: advisor) who told me I could have tagged the location while being safe with the new Mobile client.  The world is getting granular.

Also on the MoSoSo front, I added Twttr to the top right of my blog for those interested in the messaging of the mundane.

Common Attribution

One benefit of participating in LinuxWorld was spending time with peer companies.  A number of Commercial-Open Source companies have similar licenses to ours.  Because of the realities of networked use of applications, we share a very similar Attribution Clause to visibly give credit to the project if you use the code.  Attribution is a value consistent with the Open Source Defintion and as Creative Commons has demonstrated, attribution can foster innovation.  What I have to share is a couple of us believe we can look to harmonize our attribution clauses into what could become a standard.