Al Jazeera’s path-breaking The Listening Post programme looks at enduring challenges facing media freedom in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan media war continues critically looks at the video broadcast by Channel 4, the sentencing of journalist J.S. Tissainayagam and the continued violence against independent media. This programme features at the end very short submissions made by one of Sri Lanka’s leading bloggers, Indi Samarajiva, and myself.

MobileActive.org’s Katrin Verclas has a great article looking at the pros and cons of crowdsourcing election monitoring, based on the experience of Lebanon recently. 

I agree that crowdsourcing anything leaves much to be desired in terms of accuracy and information fit to feed into critical decision support processes. This is why the ICT4Peace Foundation is working on a crisis information management demonstrator, built on top of Ushahidi, that has information qualification routines built in. The tool will not be for the masses, but for agencies with trusted networks of field personnel who will feed in information, with the system itself open to social media input that can be vetted by agency trusted personnel. This opens up the system to be wholly crowdsourced, à la the Lebanese model, or completely closed to those outside the trust network(s) of an agency / agencies working on a particular issue, in a certain region or towards a shared goal. The design also allows the system to be anything in between these two extremes, so that the key responders to a crisis can determine the best degree of openness.  The important point that even if different international and local agencies had different approaches to what degree the system should be made public (i.e. extend to untrusted, initially unverified crowdsourced information) the common underlying information management architecture and standards would make for far greater and easier interoperability and information harmonisation. 

I’m interested in how Ushahidi’s evolving Swift River concept tackles this problem, that Paul Currion has succintly and accurately expressed here.  

Until such time there’s a better solution, I’ll still be training election monitors at the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) how to enter data into Google Maps that are verified for accuracy in a timely manner. Right now, there’s no escaping the labour required for the task – each location and incident is entered into the map directly, no automated source from the web is used to populate maps. Helps us give as close to a real time image of the ground situation in the lead up to and on the day of election, more useful we are told by extensive feedback from local media, than a mashup that just puts unverified reports on a map along with other data streams.

Taken from Fi & Bryn’s Big Trip

Is the role and relevance of the foreign correspondent now defunct or is it evolving?

Foreign correspondence, I explained, is not as foreign as it used to be. “There, not here,” is over. It is a momentous, overlooked shift in the world: Foreign correspondents no longer cover one place for the exclusive benefit of readers somewhere else. In the Internet age, we cover each place for the benefit of all places, and the reported-on are among the most avid consumers of what we report.

Read this particularly revealing and thought provoking story in the New York Times for a snapshot of how the web is really transforming journalism.

In Old News is Good News, I covered the efforts of Google to digitise old newspaper archives. The New York Times has a comparable exercise in the form of its Times Machine, which contains 70 years of the NYT’s archives from its first issue on 18 September 1851 through to 30 December 1922.

It’s just amazing. Even though the archives in paper form may well outlast the archives in digital form, digitising this information brings it to those of us who will never have the chance of reading or just seeing them otherwise.

Science writer Nalaka Gunawardene published an article on Groundviews today commemorating the first death anniversary of Sir Arthur C Clarke. In it he notes,

But can imagination and innovation take root unless we break free from the shackles of orthodoxy? For transformative change to happen, we will need to rethink certain aspects of our education, bureaucracy, social hierarchies and culture. Are we willing and able to attempt these?

For a start, no modern day Arthur Clarke is going to be inspired by Sri Lanka’s over-crowded and rigid curriculum or the antiquated educational system that places emphasis on rote learning and passing examinations. Throwing computers into the mix has not really modernised the mindset of those in charge. I was recently stunned to learn how the Education Ministry’s much-taunted SchoolNet web connectivity allows students to access only a handful of pre-approved websites! The babus who decided on this must fit the description in this rhyme Sir Arthur was fond of quoting, referring to a British educator of yesteryear: “I’m the master of this college; what I don’t know isn’t knowledge.”

Sir Arthur knew how closed economies and restrictive cultures stifled innovation — he once said the only memorable invention to emerge from Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe was the Rubik’s cube…

If as the President proclaims 2009 is the year of English and IT, he’ll be hard pressed to come up with answers to the challenges Nalaka poses and safeguard the legacy of Sir Arthur C Clarke by securing scientific inquiry that isn’t framed or undermined by nepotism, corruption and favouritism.

Read Nalaka article in full here.

The Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression awards honour those who have made outstanding contributions to the promoting of free expression. This year, the Sunday Leader is shortlisted for the Guardian Journalism Award.

Richly deserved.

Duminda SIlva was the first that I know of to launch a website to support his campaign. The bloke looks like Queen Elizabeth on a bad hair day. He has an interesting track record and his (erstwhile) website claims his “foundation” has “donated 9,850 families”, which makes about as much sense as why anyone who would vote for such vile swine. As Indi notes,

Duminda is a repugnant human being who happens to have money. The way he treats women alone is disqualification for public service. And yet he wins. Why? Perhaps because we haven’t offered an alternative. I’m now trying to figure out if/where I’ve registered to vote. I think I’m part of the problem.

So what are the alternatives? Two other candidates from the UNP and JHU have created websites and even entered Facebook.

Shiral Lakthilaka from the UNP has a Facebook profile and a rather interesting website.

Shiral's website

Shiral's Facebook profile

Not to be outdone, Udaya Gammanpila from the JHU also launched his website recently and also has a Facebook identity.

Udaya's website

Udaya's Facebook profile

Duminda had a website, but it is offline at the time of writing.

Shiral and Udaya differ on their Facebook approaches. Shiral has a page whereas Udaya has an identity. Shiral has 15 supporters on his page, whereas Udaya has 138 friends, both at the time of writing. Both don’t have much information on their Facebook identities, but with Shiral, it’s possible to view the information without becoming a friend, which is a better approach for a political candidate using Facebook as a means to connect with voters. In both cases however, I don’t believe debates and discussions with those on the platform are engineered to the degree they can be – in other words, this is just an extension of their website strategy, which is itself largely peripheral to real world electioneering.

It’s interesting that not a single candidate has content in Tamil or Sinhala, the assumption being perhaps that everyone in the Western Province can read and comprehend English. The quality of English across the sites is poor and the idiom is very much anchored to Sinhala.

Udaya’s site has a place for donations, the only site to feature this. That said, though the site claims you can donate via VISA, MasterCard, Amex and PayPal, there’s no payment gateway or mechanism in the site.

Content analysis on the sites as they stand is interesting. All the candidates are for democracy, human rights and good governance. Udaya notes he has worked with Amnesty International, Shiral points to his experience in conflict resolution practice and study, and Duminda, well, his website is mercifully offline at the time of writing. All the sites feature the good deeds, writing, research, videos and photos of the candidates and use Flash. The colour schemes generally reflect the colours of the political party they represent, though Udaya’s website has a strong emphasis on the national flag as a motif, mirroring the political ideology of the JHU.

Interesting absence of any audio (e.g. political speeches, radio talk shows, soundbites) on the websites, to date.

Shiral’s website homepage loads in 9.76 seconds and is 530kb. Udaya’s is 494kb and loads in 10.11 seconds (measured using Safari 4 beta on SLT ADSL). Both look aesthetically bad, but render accurately across browsers. Shiral’s website is hosted on GoDaddy under his own name and its clear that it was only started late February in the lead up the campaign. It’s short term utility is reflected in the fact that the domain name is only registered for a year. Udaya’s domain is registered by someone else in California, but is registered for two years. Not convinced that this is because Udaya understands the need to engage with his constituency through the web more than Shiral.

Compare these efforts with the likes of Pissu Poona on Facebook or even some leading bloggers in Sri Lanka and you realise just how far behind the curve they are in leveraging the potential of the web and Facebook to generate votes, or at the very least, as a platform for democratic engagement and progressive ideas generation.

No candidate is using mobile phones, though I was told that one candidate is planning a telephone campaign – the old fashioned but effective method of calling up voters. And though I don’t want to be bombarded with SMS messages touting Duminda’s angelic qualities, it is evident that not a single candidate is aware of the medium as a way of reaching out to prospective voters (e.g. through FrontlineSMS).

The web strategies are self-referential and are platforms for debate, even though the candidates themselves are open to public debate. I haven’t seen any disclosure of assets on the sites, which is required by the law of those appearing for public office. I’ve been told that two candidates have or in the near future will make such a declaration in public (a hugely positive development) but clearly, the emphasis on real world campaign strategies is extremely poorly linked to web based campaign structures.

Would be interesting to see how well each web strategy / site fared after the elections, and in fact, how long they stay online and updated once the candidate has been elected to office, or lost.

From the ICT4Peace Foundation came news today of its collaboration with Ushahidi.

The ICT4Peace Foundation, Geneva has mandated Ushahidi to develop an ICT4Peace Crisis Information Management Platform Demonstrator (CIMD), based on Ushahidi’s existing platform with the following features and functionality.

1. A product that is able to be deployed in the field with a minimum of fuss, on any browser, on mobile phones, over any Internet connection and also store data offline for later synchronization.
2. A database architecture robust enough to meet the demands of information gathering in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, based on requirements and necessary forms provided by the ICT4Peace Foundation.
3. A front end that degrades gracefully on low bandwidth connections, with key information able to be consumed even on dial-up.
4. An emphasis on accurate location data, which needs to include GPS co-ords based information and integration with UN OCHA’s location and mapping standards. The ICT4Peace Foundation will provide location data.
5. Strong reporting requirements, incl. automatic generation of reports from designated fields, map plotting, RSS updates, geo-location based alerts, proximity based alerts for specific event categories (on the lines of the Ushahidi DRC implementation )
6. A comprehensive database architecture that allows for (a) easy and seamless information exchange between field and HQ (b) off-site archival (c) customisation according to context and specific mission requirements (d) offline access to the degree possible (e) strong security (f) multimedia capable

Combined, Ushahidi’s thought leadership in the field of crowd sourced information gathering and the ICT4Peace Foundation’s expert input into the development of the tool, especially in verifying information in a manner that facilitates robust, accurate, timely analysis and information sharing in peacekeeping operations will make the CIMD a useful tool to augment crisis information management practices in the UN, and elsewhere.

After championing Ushahidi at the ICT4Peace Foundation in my capacity as a Special Advisor, I am working closely with another colleague at the Foundation, hugely experienced as a UN peacekeeper to develop the CIMD, which we feel can be a powerful tool to:

1. Demonstrate the potential of what’s possible today with new media, mobile phones, the web and open source tools
2. Add value to Ushahidi’s model of crowdsourcing by adding a module / component (call it what you will) of information verification. While Ushahidi has its own ideas in this regard, the Foundation’s initial intended audience will be more manageable, allowing for mechanisms – both technical and processual – to be built into the system that along with requisite training can significantly enhance information gathering and analysis in critical peacekeeping operations.

I met David the extremely affable and unassuming David Kobia in New York recently. Our interactions were far too short, but his presentation on Ushahidi wowed an audience of seasoned UN staff and practitioners from NY, Rome and Geneva – never mind that so few of them could pronounce Ushahidi correctly (I heard Ushahi, Ushidi and Ushadi)! We also talked briefly about the joys and pitfalls of moderating websites within cycles of violence that explored conflict resolution – he with Mashada (an online African community) and I with Groundviews.

Looking forward to blogging the development of this.

The average male Facebook user with 120 friends:

• Leaves comments on 7 friends’ photos, status updates, or wall
• Messages or chats with 4 friends

The average female Facebook user with 120 friends:

• Leaves comments on 10 friends’ photos, status updates, or wall
• Messages or chats with 6 friends

The average male Facebook user with 500 friends:

• Leaves comments on 17 friends’ photos, status updates, or wall
• Messages or chats with 10 friends

The average female Facebook user with 500 friends:

• Leaves comments on 26 friends’ photos, status updates, or wall
• Messages or chats with 16 friends

Read more here.

Media Re:public is a series of papers exploring the potential and the challenges of the emerging networked digital media environment. As it’s website describes the project,

The transformation of the media world is well underway, facilitated by the spread of digital tools. A myriad of innovative new media organizations have sprung up to take advantage of the opportunities that stem from low-cost distribution networks. Meanwhile the economic base of many of the large media companies continues to erode. Despite the demonstrated success of many new media enterprises, the euphoria over the rise of participatory media has been tempered by concerns over the quality and credibility of online media, the possible fragmentation of audiences, a decline in editorial standards and the persistent challenge of effectively reporting the news. Over the past year, researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society have reached out to a broad range of media experts to help in this assessment of the changes in new media over the past several years and to take a sober look at the successes and ongoing challenges.

Spearheaded by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, there’s an overview paper, seven issue papers and four case studies. Download them all here.

It’s old, but Blogging, Journalism & Credibility Final Report from January 2005, also from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, is a great backgrounder to these papers.