Ross Mayfield's Weblog

The British Are Coming, With Wikis!

Some of you may know Paul Youten as the founder of Yellowikis, global business listings done the wiki-way.  For the past two months Paul has been based in Paul Alto and tomorrow he heads back to London to be our man on the ground.

I met Paul and his daughter at the first Wikimania in Franfurt and was fascinated with the project they put together.  Little did I know that he was a Specialist Account Manager at Reuters and when we met again at London Wiki Wednesday we got to talking about working together.

So if you know Paul, reach out with congrats.  And if you don't know Paul yet, join him at London Wiki Wednesday in April.

InformationWeek Covers Enterprise 2.0

The InformationWeek cover story is Enterprise 2.0, based on a survey of engagement:

Despite the risks and problems, a solid minority of the 250 business technology pros surveyed by InformationWeek are behind this IT strategy push that has come to be known as Enterprise 2.0 (even if the overplayed 2.0 terminology makes some people wince). Nearly a third, 32%, describe their Web 2.0 strategies as fully engaged, our survey finds.

Reticent companies ignore the movement at the peril of their competitiveness. Within a few years, rich, collaborative software platforms that include a slate of technologies like wikis, blogs, integrated search, and unified communications will be the norm. Employees will expect to work that way, and it'll be up to IT to solve the still significant problems and deliver.

I like the disclaiming sidebar with fair commentary about the category name:

The reason it gets used is there's real meaning behind the tag [Enterprise 2.0] today, giving businesspeople a way to talk about the kind of collaboration and information sharing they must move toward. There will come a time when Enterprise 2.0 loses its meaning entirely, much as e-business did when Internet-based commerce became less of a novelty. When the kind of Web-based, highly interactive collaboration and information sharing that defines Enterprise 2.0 becomes commonplace, we'll hang this one up, too.

InformationWeek suggests Nine Easy Web Collaboration tools, highlighting Socialtext.  I need to clarify one mistake in the article, however, the following paragraph should refer to Socialtext Unplugged, the offline wiki, not Socialtext as a whole.

Socialtext offers wiki software with a twist -- you can copy the wiki to your desktop, work with it disconnected from the Internet, and then merge it with the online version; Socialtext [Unplugged] is based on TiddlyWiki, a popular single-user Wiki that stores both data and JavaScript code in a single Web page that can be stored locally on the desktop or on a server.

In general the article is a fair survey of where adoption of Enterprise 2.0 is, just beginning to mainstream and a trend embraced by incumbent vendors.  And it also highlights the varied experiences enterprises have had.  Some overspent on security, some failed to gain adoption, some have a wonderful mess of experimentation they need to clean up.  The article failed to mention SuiteTwo as a solution that encompasses wikis, blogs and RSS, but all in good time.

One Wiki, Best of Both Worlds

Back in November, Andy McAfee shared a great wiki case study from Avenue A | Razorfish.  They adapted MediaWiki to meet their needs.  Leveraging open source, a great approach for a company that builds custom Intranets.

But Jeff Walker of Atlassian Confluence, a commercial wiki vendor, disagrees:

It strikes me that if Razorfish invested all this effort and money, then the question needs to be asked: Is Mediawiki an enterprise wiki? Certainly not out of the box.

One full-time intern and two part-time developers is at least $50-100K for one year! Probably the latter number. Mediawiki in this instance became an enterprise wiki but only after considerable work.

To which Shiv Singh of Razorfish replies:

… Our wiki did not take a full year to build and the part-time developers were bench resources. In other words, it did not cost us $100,000 as Jeffery implied. Furthermore, enterprise 2.0  as coined by Andrew McFee is not about cost but about what the software does for its users and how they shape the software themselves.

Commercial enterprise 2.0 software like Socialtext, Brainkeeper and Atlassian Confluence are great options for some business scenarios and we often recommend them to our own clients. But in other cases, simply modifying open source sofware can get an organization what it needs. Furthermore, by modifying mediawiki we were able to get exactly what we needed. Most importantly, by virtue of how it is being used, we know that it is social software in an organization - and that's the most important part of an enterprise 2.0 solution.

Anu Gupta of Headshift attempted to comment (as did I and I'm stealing the structure of this post from Anu):

Shiv - not sure I agree with you…

I think you’re lucky (or unlucky) in having bench resource available - a lot of companies aren’t in that situation and have a constant battle to get developer time. So, faced with that situation - what is the cost of having 2 developers available, part time, to develop and look after your mediawiki instance over 18 months ?

Secondly, would spending the relatively small amount on an unlimited license for Confluence ($8,000) or Socialtext, and getting out of the box AD integration, search and granular permissioning, represent better value than developing it from scratch ?

Also, developing inhouse commits you to a codebase that with an audience of just yourselves (until you release it out to the community ?).

I can see both sides here.  Jeff's point is that MediaWiki wasn't designed for Intranet use out of the box.  I believe there is truth to this, that MediaWiki will always be optimal for running a public online encyclopedia or similar community.

But you can't slap down open source development on the basis of cost alone.  Going with a proprietary vendor inherently restricts freedom -- both through lock-in and the ability to extend. Open source enables a company to both manage risks, share risks across a community and adapt software for their situation.  Engaging internal developers also engages core stakeholders that can help wiki adoption.   

I also find the cost argument to be misleading. The closed option has a license cost, the open option has no license cost.  But the customer's customization requirements would have to be met somehow, and who knows how the buy vs. build works out in this case where pricing isn't transparent.

Anu's System Integrator perspective provides a third way, where a third party gains economies by providing solutions across a base of customers.  But to remove the question mark at the end of his comment, so does an open source community.  It seems Razorfish benefits from having the bulk of its codebase be community maintained, and I would suggest sharing their extensions are in their best interest. I'm not questioning the value of such integrators, each has their own proposition and value add, but the customer would be better off if an SI serviced codebase was, again, open source.

The fourth way involves me tooting my own horn.  If Razorfish started their project today, they could use Socialtext Open and get the best of both worlds.  The best of breed enterprise wiki and the freedom of open source. 

We chose a commercial open source business model because it strikes a balance between freedom and profit.  Not because we are hippies.  But because it is in the best value for end customers.  As first to market and first to feature, we continue to innovate and there is the chance that one day Razorfish would find having us service the software to be a valuable option.  But that is up to them.

When competing in a market full of choice, you have to be a choice leader.  Not just in providing on-site, Appliance, SaaS and open source deployment and licensing options.  But enabling your customers to make their own choices.

Startupping Launches

Serial entrepreneur Mark Fletcher just launched Startupping, a community resource for Internet entrepreneurs.  He kicks it off with a blog post on the best and worst decisions made by John Battelle, Dick Costolo, Paul Graham, Chris Pirillo and yours truly. Some gems:

• Dick's best decision is hiring, but not the tired A player ego stroke answer, his emphasis is on cultural fit
• John says either keep control or don't act like you have it
• Paul emphasizes being strong with investors
• Chris says to hire salespeople who understand the product and be cautious of handing over control of the business model

Startupping is a blog, wiki and forum on topic.  I've tried similar efforts in the past, notably the Startup Exchange, but got consumed with my passion that more directly pays.  Mark, all the content in the Startup Exchange wiki is CC-licensed, so please reuse.

Being consumed by the primary passion apparently isn't just my experience.  Brad Feld noted this when passing on the launch of Dick's new blog:

Relatively early on in our relationship, Dick stopped blogging.  He’s a classic always working entrepreneur and blogging quickly fell to the bottom of the pile as FeedBurner started its incredibly rapid growth curve.

Dick's new blog, Ask the Wizard, is an absolute must read for any entrepreneur.  Let's hope he doesn't stop.  When to raise money isn't an easy question, because it really varies, but the important point is isn't just when, but how much.  Pitching your company is a topic more of lore than matter, and my approach is to keep it simple, know many pitches and get into real conversation as soon as you can.  There is more on outside directors and non-founder equity so far.  The advice is practical, smart and fun, just like the author.

So Dick, let me ask you one question that I think you are in a great position to answer, at least to keep you going.  How does an Internet entrepreneur overcome not being in the Silicon Valley? I'll bet it is more than being on a plane all the time.  And I happen to wonder if not being based in the Valley explains why Feedburner was to be first to market without any competition for so long.

In a Van Down by the River

The LA Times has a funny story about Andy Bussell, Mac Genius saddled in credit card debt, and homeless by choice, living in his truck.  Indeed, a story of our interesting times.  But I can do one better from the past.

When I left Foothill for UCLA I needed to find a replacement for my room in a house in Mountain View.  This solution was found in a most peculiar young man who lived in a bike locker.  For almost a year he lived in the bike locker on campus and still had room to sleep with his bike.

He found certain economies from the access to gym showers, student aid cafeteria food, $65 per quarter tuition,  handouts from heath services and a short commute.  Embedded in the infrastructure of a community college he thrived among us in pursuit of his AA degree in art.  His work, as I remember, was mostly photography of dead animals with lighting elements in orifices as implements.  Mapethorp was quite an influence at the time.  But this pioneer may have found a way to live on $100 a month in the Silicon Valley.  He did fine in his new abode, adjusting to more comfortable surroundings.  Kind to the dalmatian that ate the couch.  Set a circle of gasoline on fire in the street while beckoning erstwhile kegger custodians to ritual.  And then he faded into memory.

The Web 2.0 Learning Model

I've been dabbling with Yahoo! Pipes, an easy to use feed aggregator and manipulator.  I've made such silly things as a feed for anytime someone mentions Twitter on Twitter, viewing Twitter through Flickr, a Firehose feed of Socialtext public blogs, using a wiki page as a command line to gain additional context from the web within the page (Page Pipes), translated some stuff into German, and Techmeme through Flickr.  A couple of years ago I would have killed for something to splice feeds alone, although I can't remember why, and with Pipes I can do much more.  Which says a lot given that I am not a programmer and generally too busy.

I did most of this by stealing other people's ideas, through the view source method of learning.  Lots of people learned HTML this way, what you could call the Web 1.0 model of learning.  Since Andressen implemented a browser instead of the two-way web Berners-Lee envisioned, developing in HTML was effectively done in a disconnected way.  You learn by viewing source, copying and pasting occasionally, writing offline and pushing changes up by FTP.  Transparency of code accelerated learning, but with every copy and paste a hypertext angel dies.

It is one thing to look at a block of HTML and understand how it works.  It is another thing to be able to see how it was made.  Good coders document for others within the code, something essential when working within teams, but invaluable for working with strangers.  And strange code.  And letting strangers learn from you.  You get the idea.

Seeing how it is made ideally incorporates attribution and memory.  Attributing sources of code that was built upon.  Memory meaning seeing how the code was written over time.

So back to Pipes.  You learn how to use it by viewing, cloning and editing the source of different pipes.  There is a good collection of popular pipes to start with and you can search deeper.  But I've noticed that since launch there hasn't been that much in the way of new Pipes rising to prominence.  I hacked the URL to browse by number of clones, but noticed most of the core pipes (granular bits good for reuse, cloned more than run) are still created by the staff.  In other words, the community isn't learning fast enough, or there is little community to learn. 

The first thing Pipes should do is make it more of a social tool.  Add Comments below each Pipe to enable a feedback loop and let us browse people to reveal active contributors.

The second thing Pipes should do is make it more of a wiki.  I'm not suggesting they need a wiki for user generated documentation, that's the third thing and a no-brainer.  When someone clones a Pipe, attribute and link back to where it was cloned.  Inheritance is not a death tax.  Further, I'm pretty sure most users don't recognize that you can mashup multiple Pipes.  It took me a little while to discover that while editing I can search for other pipes and drag them in (note that dragging doesn't kill hypertext angels) or drag in my own pipes.  This should almost be the most prominent feature of the editing interface, to encourage more re-use, attribution and granular abstraction.  In other words, I'm looking for the attribution/backlinks and revision history inherent in a wiki.

Oh, and that third thing.  I'm really impressed by what the Pipes team invented and think it could become a vital component of the web.  But this thing needs documentation across the web.  Put it in the wiki because you couldn't possible write it all yourself.  Let people like Rod Boothby document how to hook Pipes up to Teqlo, not just because he can spell Teqlo ;-).  Let me know if you need help installing Socialtext Open ;-).

Now let me fire up my buzzword engine.  I think the Web 2.0 Learning Model incorporates key traits of how wikis work.  Notably permission to participate, transparency, identity, discourse, attribution and memory.  We learn not only through copying others, but by watching how others copy others over time.

Entrepreneur Hindsight

I was asked by email to provide what was my best decision and worst mistake as an entrepreneur.

Best Decision -- To become an entrepreneur in the first place

I started my career in the non-profit sector, and then in the public sector, all in hopes of changing the world.  I quickly realized that I could both have an impact and make a living in the private sector.  And am lucky to now work on a company that produces social goods.  Further, as a startup founder I believe you can quickly have a significant impact, possibly more than any other job.  It is a roller coaster of risk.  One day you can be beaming with pride to have created jobs and a fun place to work, and another you stress about meeting payroll and having folks be overtly human with one another.  I may be a little lucky in finding my role (but not so lucky that I don't have to work for a living), but sincerely believe the world needs more entrepreneurs.

Answer #2, to more specifically tie this to a decision...

Best Decision -- Picking co-founders you trust

It is not an exaggerated saying, that you marry your business partners, especially co-founders in a startup.  Some look to partner with the Geek Girl for her technical whizbangery or Phone Guy for the sweet talk and access to capital.  While you want to work with people that are skilled, I'd say the primary qualifier is if you can trust your co-founder.  If you have any hesitation, either work it out or walk away, quickly.  I'm luck to work with great co-founders I can trust with my life.  Beyond trust, I would also put startup experience beyond specific skills.  Someone that has rode the roller coaster before is less likely to barf in your lap.

Biggest Mistake -- Not taking bigger risks earlier

Maybe because in hindsight all risks are clear, but I always find myself regretting not taking bigger risks earlier.  For example, open sourcing the Socialtext code was something we waited on until the company had strong footing.  Partially because we thought there would be cannibalization, partially because we were understaffed to really engage with the community.  But I believe if we bought this bullet earlier in the history of the company we would be reaping better rewards.  As a planning exercise, now I always try to ask two questions: "How could we take more risk?" and "What risk can we take that creates the greatest amount of options?"  I find there is always a way to do a little more, in particular by getting past instinct to control prevalent in so many entrepreneurs.

How to destroy the Silicon Valley

For some time now, I've wondered if my destiny is to destroy the Silicon Valley.  I grew up here, the weather is nice, but I've watched it change time and again into a massive marketing function too expensive to live in.

Pascal Zachary opines in the Times that When it Comes to Innovation, Geography is Destiny.  An apparent fact is that the Valley picked it self up after the crash and some innovations have borne fruit for us to relish.  In his research he visited Estonia, which is as cool, or at least as cold, as you can get.  But his take away is that Estonia, Finland and Iceland were blindsided by the penultimate innovation, Google.  Nevermind Skype, I suppose.  But his point is true in a MSM or Wikiality kind of way, we believe we are the center of the innovative universe.  A great mashup pit in the sky.

You can't argue that the interpersonal Silicon Valley cross pollinates within a culture of sharing, and the result is  fantacular.  But half of what makes this work is our ability to collaborate in creating something new, but the other is how we can bring it to the world as an edge that cuts across.  Look, we kick the world's ass in marketing technology, so much so you expect it.  If it comes from here, odds are you will be a fan.  Until favor tips to a new marketing engine the valley will remain.

But innovations brought to market really could happen everywhere and nowhere.

A cluster of technologists could not only innovate elsewhere, but perhaps have an edge on the Vally.  An optimal social network structure is a dense core and dynamic periphery.  A group of close collaborators experimenting at the margin of what they do.  Informed by changing ideas and people from as far as possible.  We have this all here.  We have the collaborative dynamic.  But while face-to-face is the greatest bandwidth, new collaborative models will test the establishment.

Commercial open source business models, for example, can base a company's capital formation and marketing function in the Valley, but benefit from a dynamic periphery open to participation.  Skype did something similar with management and marketing in a capital center and development in a periphery of expertise.  Many a startup leverages the rest of the world, but while the Valley takes credit for pipelining it really is everywhere already.

So what I'm really interested in is how and if the promise of remote collaboration will undermine the Valley's lead.  Today 85% of workers collaborate remotely.  Business models like the above embrace.  If Socialtext does its job it, innovation can happen despite geography and with mass collaboration.

We had an all hands meeting here this week, bringing together the 2/3rds of the company that work from their far flung homes to collaborate face-to-face (F2F).  Christine covers the innovations that happened in our open to the public Wikithon.  This was one mechanism to cross-pollinate our distributed culture with the locals.  Large companies do so through executive tours of innovative companies that I host occasionally with dubious effect.  F2F is part of the answer.  Ideally you form some bonds for remote and more effective collaboration, but at the least you know who the voice on the conference call or handle in IRC is.  Remote collaboration is more efficient, but if not paired with F2F it is not as effective. 

The counter increasingly effective remote collaboration is how the Valley upleveled the F2F advantage.  Open Space methodology, Barcamps, Co-working, Wiki Wednesday, Upcoming and Eventful discovery and other ad-hoc easy group forming mechanisms have more people meeting and sharing than ever.  Here, but the models themselves have been shared (Barcamp is global by now).

The contrarian in me says there is opportunity elsewhere. Perhaps it is in combination with here as I'm exploring now, but if you aren't here god bless you because it is too crowded and you may be better off for your next big thing.

But if you want to destroy the advantage of the the Valley, work in the collaboration industry.

Wiki Deliberation Passes Bill in Legislature

On Friday, the Utah House of Representatives passed the first Universal School Voucher bill in the nation.  The bill is destined to become law according John Fund in the Wall Street Journal and was also the first real test of wikifying the legislative process. 

Mr. Urquhart was so confident of his math that he started an interactive Web site modeled after the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia. He posted his bill on it and invited comments. Thousands of people logged on to www.politicopia.com and participated. "If anyone can show evidence (not just alarmist rhetoric) that public education does not come out financially ahead with this bill, post your arguments and data in the comment section," Mr. Urquhart challenged his readers. No one was able to effectively rebut him.

In an email, Representative Steve Urquhart noted to me:

"For six years we've been chasing our tail on this bill, and today the bill passed in very large part because of Politicopia.  When private dialogue was made public, the main area of criticism was publicly revealed to be fictitious.  Only that kind of sunlight forced critics to abandon a criticism they knew to be false. When the debate turned to actual policy and actual issues, the bill advanced."

I personally haven't been a supporter of school vouchers, but have learned a lot from watching this debate.  I also vote Democrat, but am a toolmaker that believes that even if Socialtext is used by the other side -- not only do both sides win, but the constituents they serve.  I got into this business to change the world, and I think helping put a bill into law through deliberation is one step forward.

So, you can help me with my particular passion for opening the legislative process.  I'm looking for suggestions and connections to other legislative bodies that should implement this solution.

What's your morning routine?

I'll roll out of bed around 6:30 and sit in the lawnchair in the backyard with coffee and laptop.  I try to go with any waking thought I have, maybe note it in a wiki.  Take a quick glance at the calendar.  Then a shot of Techmeme and ego feeds in Newsgator.  Skim unread Gmail and then I'm done scanning.  More coffee.  Turn on IRC, so I'm effectively in the office.  I'll try to dive deep into something before the kids wake up, maybe a blog post like this, start my daily internal blog post or plow through email.  Sometimes it is a call with Europe.  What I write may go unfinished before I take my daughter to school.  Then I have a good half hour at the office before it starts buzzing.

Not that it is terribly effective, but I've never been much of a morning person and that's my routine.  Jim Citrin surveyed 20 CEOs and executives from F500 companies with the same question, and got how they tap the power of their morning routine.  Go read the details, but the tips are:

• Start early
• Get a jump on email
• Exercise every morning
• Be thoughtful about the source, form and timing of your news
• Problem solve
• Make family time
• Be creative with your morning routine

Now the cult of the CEO isn't the best source for tips, but they are good stories about habits of effective and busy people.

What's your morning routine?