Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]

Presentation

2010-01-21T19:56:48Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Introduction */

Hello — we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other [[Future of Wikipedia]] pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY Professor Wikipedia says …] =
[[Image:Professor.jpg|100px]] [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

= General public view of Wikipedia's biggest problem [Yosuke] =
* we were trying to reach a segment primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community
* common themes in the responses we received
* majority of responses indicated content issues were the biggest problem

[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

[[Image:Mturkpie01.jpg]] [[Image:Mturkpie02.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

= Analysis of other problems considered [Hector] =

== Introduction ==
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rationale for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), and the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review].

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever, new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a tertiary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted. [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project See Bookshelf Project]

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
*Wikipedia could be considered both an encyclopedia and a movement
*Some have brought attention to rates of editorship
*Wikimedia wrestles with the question of membership in the Community
*What distinguishes a user from being a reader, casual editor, or experienced editor?
==== Barriers to Entry====
*What are some of the (many) reasons that a new user can be discouraged from editing?
*Note the Wikipedia Community's own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWBIES concerns], comprehensively addressing ways to make the newbies feel more welcome.
==== Financial Sustainability====
*We are punting this to Bridgespan

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Wikimedia and Bridgespan's initiatives [Franny] =
== ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative'' - the studies ==
[[image:Usability.jpeg|150px]]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]

== Overview of Bridgespan involvement with Wikipedia ==
[[image:Bridgespan.jpeg|300px]]

- [[Image:Wikistrategy.jpg|200px]] initiative
- approaches and perspective on wikipedia and its problems
:- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:- [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities emerging strategic priorities]
- grassroots efforts and duplicative smaller initiatives are helpful; efficiency is not main concern

== Our preliminary analysis ==
:Key problems:
::1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
::2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
:::* Deals with issues of:
::::- community
::::- motivations
::::- outreach and public relations
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
== FireFox browser extension [Amanda] ==

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension
[http://www.slideshare.net/amandapey/wikipedia-group Browser Spec Images]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

== Implementation - First steps ==
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

== Suggestions from Mozilla community [Bruno] ==

*Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 Stet] to highlight controverted parts of the text
**[http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html#gpl3.verbatimcopying.0.0 Example of this tool]
*Advantages:
**raise awareness of controversies in each article;
**bring the discussion page to the surface making the user more acquainted with the idea of reading that information critically
*Problems:
**How to integrate past discussions in the software database?
**How to get people to use the tool?

= Other solutions we considered [Bruno] =
==Beta Versions==
*Inspired by the open source community production system: decentralized production and semi-centralized control over the (semi) final product
**Wikipedia has been discussing this idea in the context of biographies of living persons
*Advantages:
**Reduced vandalism and increased accuracy in articles
**Establishment of a culture of discussing/reviewing articles before pushing them live
*Problems:
**How to deal with the eventual backlog of edits to be approved? This would only be solved by also increasing the number of "power editors"
**How to determine who is promoted to this higher level?

==Campaign to encourage users to "donate" edits==
===Objectives===
*Convert users into editors
*Focus on underdeveloped articles that could be identified with the tool described above
*Introduce newbies to Wikipedia's writing style and rules

==Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (Franny)==
*Plugging in landing page to school system
*Lesson plan

= Discussion Questions =
1) How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?

2) What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)

3) Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

Day 8 Predictions

2010-01-14T01:12:56Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Should there be Due Process Online */

For those who aren't familiar, here are [http://creativecommons.org/dmca/ Creative Commons'] and [http://www.google.com/dmca.html Google's] explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online

==Should there be Due Process Online==
It seems like there should be, though I can't predict where the folks from Google believe it should come from. On the one hand, you might think that Google is "just" a company, and their due process obligations are not greater than those of any other private entity who effects your life: i.e. send a letter to the complaint department and pray. At the entire other end of the spectrum, you might think that Google is such a critical point-of-control online that the government should have no problem regulating them in areas from copyright to even their handling of search results and their imposition of the death penalty. My guess is that Google believes itself to be in the former, "leave-us-alone" pile.

It's great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which I'm guessing are intended to raise its Google rank.

As it is, Google and other service providers like facebook are a black box. In the Death Penalty article it seemed that a site could be given the death penalty without even knowing it had done something wrong. Clearer guidelines are needed and more open and transparent procedures for resolving cases. Our guest is unlikely to be receptive to imposing additional procedure and transparency, given the extra burdens that would place on Google, but maybe an appeal to the "Don't be evil" side of the company would help?

==Due Process Defaults==

There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). I think one of the biggest problem companies such as Google face is however that after summary proceedings, which in Europe can take more than 3 months after the lawsuit was filed, the procedure on the merits can take years and years (up to 6 or even more years), so it takes too much time until the case comes to an end (unless parties are willing to settle). Another problem are the huge damages (imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance) that are imposed very easily and run up very quickly. I would like to hear the thoughts of the guests on this.

:The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint.
:Due process is needed for the protection of the party against which actions to be taken, and in the interest of public notice. According to Facebook terms of service, an account will be disabled if it is found to repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights. Here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does "repeatedly" refer to? Who have the final say on this "infringement" of other people's intellectual property rights? Hope to hear more from our guest on their practice to deal with this, and how they balance between the alleged owner of the right and the one against whom the action to be taken.

==Google and China==
Although today's class isn't about this topic, it's hard to believe it won't come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason's concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world's biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.
:Yes, The voice of "Google in China" not "Google China" is around for a while. It will be interesting to hear how Google will do business in China if it finally decided to pull out. This will have a huge impact on not only the internet users in China, but also the resellers and strategic partners of Google China.

:I think there is some connection between the Google-China news and today's topic. From a macro perspective, what kind of due process should be given to Google (or any other type of Internet service provider) before the decision is made to force them to withdraw? Today's speaker should have some good insights into Google's experiences with Turkey to might help us understand what the coming fight with China may look like. Another thing to consider with regard to today's topic is whether there should be (if any) due process afforded to China itself - by releasing the publicity statement, Google is essentially making wide allegations against (presumably) the Chinese Government - does this raise due process concerns? Was this the best or only way to handle it? It certainly got the world's attention, and I do find it doubtful that China would have responded in any other way.

Day 6 Thoughts

2010-01-13T00:54:08Z

ReubRodriguez:

Quickie thought: how effective can Firefox plugins really be for many projects - especially those that require a large non-geek percentage? And what if IE were to allow easy compatibility with plugins? Consider the following back of the envelope calculations:

-25% of Internet users use Firefox. [http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/05/05/how-many-firefox-users-are-there-mozilla-estimates-270-million/ Estimates] are that this is about 270 million users.

-The latest [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics statistics] from Mozilla show that there are about 200 million add-ons in use total. But that's clearly not evenly distributed. I can't find the number, so let's wildly ballpark it and say that the average add-on user is using four add-ons (the Stanford computer in Room 280B is clearly using way more...), which means there are 50 million people that really use add-ons.

That means that if we take the roughly billion people who are estimated to be on the Net (based on the marketshare above of Firefox), about 5% even have the capacity to change their user experience with a Firefox extension.

I don't know what the implications of this are - anyone else have a deep thought? - but I think it's worth remembering that those who desire to change their Internet experiences this way are a small minority of users. If IE decided to open up to extensions, though - and if there was some way to translate existing Firefox extensions over to that platform - we might have a whole new ballgame... [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:Reuben: While we certainly demonstrated the utility of crowdsourcing and plug-ins in our discussion, Jason is correct in reminding us that we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees. Both crowdsourcing and plug-ins have their weaknesses, either the need for a critical mass of participation, the need for high quality participation (the kind that can't be bought from Mechanical Turk), or simple browser compatability. Without some larger education campaign or publicity, it's hard to imagine these plug-ins making significant impacts on many users. The majority will likely stick to plain vanilla internet and the cybersecurity problem, ubicomp problems, etc. will all still be out there for them. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:ReubRodriguez

2010-01-11T19:04:56Z

ReubRodriguez:

Are you in this class? Frank, aka [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand Luke]] 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
: Indeed, I am. How can I help you? [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Day 6 Predictions

2010-01-11T18:49:03Z

ReubRodriguez:

Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of "information sources reliability"; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.

:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the "user-friendliness" aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it's critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict "passive users" and "active reporters" to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass. I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim. No offense to the America's news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren't enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet. Jason's point about passive users versus active reporters is important. I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service. I'd also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report. Never underestimate the laziness of the average person. My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Emily:
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker.

Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case.

Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â

So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear.

Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I'm not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don't put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed 'offensive' on blogs?

Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder's business model.

Day 3 Thoughts

2010-01-11T03:19:13Z

ReubRodriguez:

Tyler: I am wondering if the terms in AMT's conditions of use that works prepared by turkers are to be considered works for hire would be considered valid. My initial instinct is that it would not necessarily be so.

: To paraphrase, the Copyright Act defines a work for hire as (17 U.S.C. 101):

* 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment
** The factors to make determination were listed in the CCNV v Reid case (790 U.S. 730, 1989)
*** The two most important factors are provision of employee benefits and tax treatment (from Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 1992)
* OR 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work if:
** 1. category: is one of:
*** part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
*** a translation
*** a supplementary work â adjunct to a work made by another author
*** a compilation
*** an instructional text â systematic instructional activities
*** a test
*** answer material for a test
*** an atlas
** 2. intent: if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire
must fit into one of the 8 categories to be a contracted work made for hire (p132)
Most work produced for HITs would not seem to fall into either of these categories.

::Michael: I think many works produced through HITs are going to be considered compilations or collective works. Certainly David's Sheep or 100 Dollar Bill are compilations so long as they are taken as a whole. Even in any attempt to monetize the individual elements, the Turk Participation Agreement states that any works which cannot be considered works for hire are assigned to the requester. (full text copied below)

::Section 3(a): "As a Provider, the Requester for whom you provide Services is your client, and as such, you agree that the work product of any Services you perform is deemed a "work made for hire" for the benefit of the Requester, and all ownership rights, including worldwide intellectual property rights, will vest with the Requester immediately upon your performance of the Service. To the extent any such rights do not vest in Requester under applicable law, you hereby assign or exclusively grant (without the right to any compensation) all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, to such work product to Requester." [https://www.mturk.com/mturk/conditionsofuse The full policy can be found here.]

::Jason: Michael just sort of stole my mojo - I was about to say a similar thing - but Tyler, I guess I too don't see why you think HITs are not works-for-hire under test 2. Take the book about cats: it seems to me that Bjoern specifically ordered those stories for his compilation, which would fall under the rule. I guess there could be a problem of asymmetry if both parties need to know that they work is being commissioned, since in many cases only the commissioner might know what it's being used for. But given the Mechanical Turk terms of service that Michael reproduces above - which probably constitutes a "written instrument" - I think the Turker would be hard-pressed to argue that he had zero notice, even if he didn't know specifically what his work would be used for.

:::Andrew: I think there's certainly enough wiggle room in the words "specially ordered or commissioned" to support a claim that the AMT contract does not effect WMFH status, at least in some cases. Take the cats book: When it was ordered, Bjorn himself didn't know what he was going to do with the cats when he got them. How could he argue that he had "specially ordered or commissioned" them for that compilation at the time of the contract? More generally, I think the 'meeting of the minds' aspect is more important than Jason suggests, given that it's the basis of so much doctrine in contract interpretation. That is, I think it's an open question whether a task which the performer does not know to have a certain purpose can be said to be "specially ordered or commissioned" for that purpose with regard to the written instrument.

::Sharona: While I agree with Jason and Michael that this is probably a work made for hire, do you think this may run into contracts of adhesion problems? Or, do you think if the average turker was aware of what his "original" (after all, to be copyrightable, it must be original) work would be used for, he would have agreed to the Participation Agreement? Does it matter?

::Tyler: To follow up on my original thought, I agree that an argument could be made for HITs to be WMFH, but I see big problems with the "specially ordered or commissioned" language as Andrew mentioned. Also, I'm not sure mention in the terms of service would qualify as a written instrument signed by both parties.

:::Jason: Hmmm, that's interesting. After doing a bit more reading, I agree that the WMFH requirements are a bit stricter than I thought they were, so I do see your point, even though I stand by the view that the cat book contributions likely qualify as works made for hire. Maybe we need to find a HIT that becomes a creative work and then sue the compiler for copyright violation to find out? Sure, it'd be an ironic copyright suit coming from this group, but we can work around that.

Victoria: I think what bothers me most about Ub. Hum. Comp. through tools like Mechanical Turk and re-Captcha is the lack of transparency. I think a lot of the fear about these programs - that lead to the Iranian hypo stem from a lack of transparency. The task master is not required to say what the micro task is for. However, what I found to be a fascinating comment last night in response to this came from Bjoern. After publishing the cat book he said he asked a test group if it was OK to publish the book without asking first. Bjoern reported that the Turkers seemed to be OK with it. I wonder if it is just the non-Turkers (like myself) that have a problem with the lack of transparency and dream up these dystopic problems.

Secondly in addition to transparency I have a problem with the micro-tasking. Although Aaron's artwork is completely beautiful - Crowdflower kind of makes me feel uneasy at times - especially when thinking that it could eventually be tapped into on an IPhone app during a person's idle time and that a security guard is doing it while he is supposed to be engaged in surveillance. By making the tasks so short and small Turk infuses money-making into every aspect of life. It makes everything a cost-benefit analysis. Should I go to the beach and read a Magazine or make money. Should I stand in line and think about what I have to cook later or make money? Should I spend time with my family or make money?

Juan: I'm thinking the "addiction" problem Zittrain mentioned. From the requesters' perspective, they want to come up with some interesting idea to attract people to work on it. The more attractive the idea, the more time people might be willing to contribute. Like the ESP game, some people spend more than 20 hours a week on it, almost "work" as a full time employee. The downside is "addiction". However, the good thing is people contribute while they are playing. To put it another way, human computing collects human intelligence which would have been wasted on meaningless on-line surfing. Especially for those countries with a large population like China, human computing can make use of a large amount of human resources.

Another interesting thing is the responsibility of Ubicomp sites. Lukas said they will not accept works to spam other one's website. How about political abuse? Transparency may be one solution, because users would be given the opportunity to judge the social value and choose to walk away. Should there be some code of conduct governing the activities of Ubicomp sites? How can we make sure Ubicomp sites will follow the code of conduct?

Sheel: To be honest, I was surprised that Lukas cared about monitoring the customers (i.e. those requesting services to be performed) at all. Sure, there are plenty of ethical issues as mentioned above and as talked about, but doesn't it make sense from a business perspective to not spent capital on monitoring something for which there is no legal reason to monitor? I feel like the more he claims to say that he is monitoring, the more the public may demand and expect monitoring. It makes more sense to me for Crowdflower to be like YouTube or eBay; in other words, if content is so obviously illegal (like child porn videos on YouTube or selling presidential inauguration tickets on eBay) then it should be taken down upon notice, but otherwise it should be left up and not monitored.

Elisabeth: A lot of our concerns are quite paternalistic, and it's hard to imagine what appropriate legal solutions would be. I don't know much about labor law in this country, but I think we mostly try to regulate minimum wage and truly hazardous working conditions. Regulation of addiction issues or mind-factory issues would really be a brave new world. I left class more interested in providing market solutions for workers who like microwork, but want away around some of the downsides -- for instance, a Crowdflower-like service that filtered tasks for workers, giving them access to better tasks and allows them to carry their reputations with them.

:Reuben: I was intrigued by the ways Turkers have already united to protect themselves to an extent. Between the Turker Nation message board and the Turkopticon Firefox extension, dedicated Turkers have already found ways to warn the Turker community about bad job providers and inform each other about what HITs are easy and what pay well. I can't remember who it was, but I believe someone was concerned that he who controls Turkopticon would be in a powerful position to influence what tasks are performed on Mechanical Turk, but I don't think an open source system that depends on community reviews really has that kind of vulnerability. Combined with other forums, like Turker Nation, I think the community could play a strong role in weeding out the bad and directing people to the good parts of Mechanical Turk and human computing.

Day 5 Predictions

2010-01-08T23:06:24Z

ReubRodriguez:

Victoria: My prediction is that the speakers are going to be extolling the virtues of Wikipedia and explaining that although the site has gone under some transformations it is still a vibrant force. I would concede that I think it is. Most people I know still immediately turn to Wikipedia for a quick run down of a topic or an answer to a quick question. However, as time moves on the site is becoming less innovative and more standard. I would like to ask them about their understanding and personal experiences in trying to keep Wikipedia young. Moreover, having read that 85% of the contributors to Wikipedia are male I'd specifically love to ask Phoebe whether she feels that the articles are written from the male gaze and lack the other gender's perspective.

:: Sharona: Like Vickie, I was also struck by the statistics on the demographic breakdown, and I would love to hear their thoughts on whether they feel wikipedia really does represent a wide range of views, or more specifically (especially in the US) that of a white male. Another thing I think they will likely discuss - and probably not have a good answer for - is the question of privacy and defamation on wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. Can, or should, the website and/or its users or editors be held accountable if allegedly defamatory posts are not removed? Who makes that call? And what standards are used? It seems to me that there's no easy answer to this: while they may not run into strictly legal issues, it could definitely affect reader's trust in the information or fear that they too are vulnerable.

::: Ramesh: I was struck by the Economist's comparison of the number of articles about Pokemon and the Solidarity movement on English Wikipedia. I expect the Wikipedians will admit that they are disproportionately white, young, male, more interested in science fiction than what others might consider more interesting forms of culture, etc, and that's a problem, but that there's really no better solution. They may be right; is there a better internet resource in English on Solidarity than Wikipedia? Maybe when Google Books is fully up and running, it would be a better resource (or just co-opted and summarized by Wikipedia).

Bruno: I expect our guests to focus their comments on the strategies Wikipedia is adopting to address two of what seems to be the main problems of the project: (i) quality/accuracy of its articles, and (ii) issues concerning vandalism. After reading the materials, I was struck by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to be worried about increasing its user base. The increasing amount of rules, the hostility of veteran users to newbies and the efforts to attract more scientists to participate in the project suggest that in fact they would be interested in less, but more qualified participation. Just like the attitude of our guest from CrowdFlower, perhaps a sort of procrastination to address a problem that is not yet so concrete might be operating here: with over 40 thousand contributors it's not clear when more means actually less.

:: Sheel: I'd be interested in hearing Wikimedia's reaction to this: what if people started using CrowdFlower or MechanicalTurk, if they don't already, to pay people 10 cents or so to go edit Wikipedia pages? I know they weren't okay with MyWikiBiz, but this is much more under the radar. Finally, I'd like to hear where the debate is on inclusionists v. exclusionists (meaning those who want to produce the 'integrity' of the encyclopedia and shy away from what may be deemed as frivolous by some portion of editors). My guess is that there is still no concrete answer---if enough editors are passionate about editing/creating a new page, then it'll stay.

::: Andrew: I also hope to hear some discussion about the intersection between Wikipedia and paid crowdsourcing. The possibilities here aren't all nefarious (what about an mturk task to fix Wikitypos?)

Daniel: In addition to the topics above, I expect a discussion about the possible increase in vulnerability Wikipedia faces at the content layer, on par with a less dynamic environment. Since most pages are already done, at least in the English version, editors may feel less motivated to monitor existing, but seldom edited pages which are not on the "watch list". As a consequence, they can be more easily twisted by outsiders. In connection with that issue, I guess that our guests will raise the question "how does it feel to be a Wikipedian?" - and try to describe the community feeling from the perspective of insiders, and the challenges to bring more people in.

Franny: Main problems within the wikipedia bubble are summarized well above - I think that we also need to examine the problem of how to improve/encourage the transfer of wikipedia's benefits (e.g. generativity and sense of community) outside of the wikipedia microcosm. To that end, I hope that our guests will discuss their experiences with similar applications and initiatives (e.g. citizendium, etc.), and provide their views of the successes or weaknesses.

:Jason: Great point by Franny; I too hope they address how Wikipedia's success can to other initiatives. After all, I've been struck by just how ''sui generis'' Wikipedia seems to be, and now that we are in 2010, I think we need to start asking whether Wikipedia is an outlier or whether its principles of both creation and governance can really generalize to other projects. Of course, as I write that, I find myself wondering whether free and open source software is another example of the Wikipedia model. Further, I wonder what they think of as other really good candidates for adopting Wikipedia's new form of participatory self-government. For instance, some of us have been laughing about Stanford's new, fairly permissive policies when it comes to handing in papers at the end of the semester (you can still pass the . Could these new policies have been created by the Stanford community via wiki? What would the outcome have been?

Juan: I would like to hear their opinions on
1. How to deal with vandalism and spams while keeping the generativity of Wikipedia as much as possible. Now they've created several restrictions to lower of the possibility of attacks by vandals and spams, such as blocking IP addresses of repeat offenders, using full protection and semi-protection functions to restrict editing of certain pages. However, these restrictions limits free editability and thus seems jeopardize its generativity.
2. The prospect of wikipedia in China. How will it compete with its local counterpart Hudong. Unlike wikipedia, Hudong rewards top contributors with gifts ranging from post cards to MP3 players, and offers some features that complies with Chinese users' habits. Recently, it even launched it partnership with some popular overseas Chinese website, making its first steps to expand into overseas Chinese market. What is wikipedia's strategy facing this situation? Is there any possibility to establish some cooperation or strategic partnership between these two on-line encyclopedias?
3. Sustainable problem. Dedicated editor may leave because of life cycle change, motivation by other UGC websites, tire of anti-threat work, and etc. How will wikipedia attract new editors and keep them?

Ethan: In addition to all the issues mentioned above, I'd like to know how Wikipedia addresses censorship efforts from various governments. We talked about how the Chinese government forced Google to remove certain search results (e.g. falun gong) and I'm wondering if Wikipedia receives such requests. Censorship doesn't necessarily have to be so nefarious-- it's illegal to deny holocaust in 13 countries according to Wikipedia, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation in Korea, etc. How will Wikipedia abide by local laws when pressed?

:Tyler: Check out this story for an actual example of this happening: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/wikipedia_murder/

Elisabeth: I predict we'll hear that Wikipedia's editor corp is either growing or sufficiently large already. But I'd like to solicit some ideas on how active editors' time could be better leveraged if numbers do start dropping. Some of the articles we read suggested that editors spent a lot of time bickering over minor points--perfecting one page while ignoring a slew of others. Are there ways to eliminate the bureaucracy and consciously turn to a state that maximizes pages edited at least once vs. pages edited by 100 people? On the subject of growing pains more generally, can they point to examples of online communities that have overcome the problem they're having -- an influx of newcomers -- that inspire them?
I'd also like to hear whether the donation strategy is feasible for funding Wikipedia long-term, or if they're planning on using other Wikimedia projects to fund some of it, or if there's some other theory.

Hector: I strongly hope to hear some clarification between the goals of the project as the sum of all human knowledge or as an online encyclopedia/reference bookshelf. The differences between these two stated outcomes color how the content and editorial problems--and indeed whether some of the media's concerns are actually problems at all, in the view of Wikipedians. In several articles, Wikipedians will rebut complaints by saying something along the lines of "Wikipedia isn't about that in the first place!" I personally would agree but this approach can completely go against the portrait that Jimbo presents of the project at times.

Reuben: The battle for Wikipedia's soul is between the inclusionists and the deletionists. I'm interested to see how the people who run Wikipedia see its future.

Day 4 Predictions

2010-01-07T18:15:04Z

ReubRodriguez:

Amanda: I am very interested to hear Chuck's take on the relationship between the government, large corporations like Microsoft, and the defcon-attending hacker community (like the L0pht group mentioned in the Wired article). Is the government receptive to both groups? I imagine the relationship specifically between the hacker community and the government can become tense because the interests of both groups is not exactly aligned and is sometimes conflicting. Have they been able to successfully work together around a common threat like cybersecurity? While I imagine the government often tries to recruit from the hacker community, and I'm interested to hear where they draw the lines legally as far as subversive behavior within the hacker community (ie do they bend the rules for the sake of potential advances in cybersecurity?).
:Of course there are great advances yet to be made in the relationship between white-hat hackers and corporations like Microsoft. Skepticism abounds from both sides for obvious reasons, as well as entrenched interests and preconceptions based on past interactions ("Hackers are simply criminals", or on the other side "Microsoft is The Man").

Vickie: I'm going to dovetail from Amanda's comment and say that I think Chuck is going to speak more specifically about the ID program he was talking about the other day as a possible solution to cybersecurity. Just as in the Wired article - identification solves a large percent of the problem, mostly through accountability. However, this seems too Orwellian for my blood. Unlike a passport that is shown in person - a computer ID is never going to be checked person to person. The computer will always be the intermediary. Moreover, this type of program may deter people from doing things on the Internet that they normally would do - if it wasn't anonymous. Visit certain political sites, fetish sites etc. etc. At what point is our fear balanced by our need for an Internet that is not being surveyed.

:Ramesh: I wonder what Chuck would say are the benefits to anonymity on the internet, and whether they are outweighed by the security risks. It seems like there could be a creditable argument saying just that. Also, I wonder about problems in scaling up ID programs -- one would assume that many countries would not participate, but if desirable content could only be accessed by an ID, perhaps consumers would then demand their nations also issue internet IDs.

Hector: Some of Chuck's points from his remarks on Tuesday that stuck with me most were the strengthening of internet identification and alternative networks that use something else than TCP. I hope that he elaborates on the possible applications of the latter.

Lien: I'm very interested to hear (i) what Chuck thinks the biggest cybersecurity risk is that Microsoft and other simular major private companies face and (ii) how the company is prepared for attack on its system and will react on it. I however predict he's not gonna answer that question...

Reuben: On Tuesday we spent a great deal of time on the attribution problem of cybersecurity which is related to deterrence and retaliation. I'd like to hear more about that, but I'd also like to hear about how we shore up our own defenses and incentivize security. I'll be interested to hear who Chuck thinks should be responsible for security. There is a dilemma for a company like Microsoft that may not want to have the burden of cybersecurity thrust upon them, but may also resist government mandates and control. I think Chuck will probably recognize that both public and private sector have a role to play, but he will emphasize the need for government to provide more leadership in the area.

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T23:41:38Z

ReubRodriguez:

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are "creatives", I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight.

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Michael: Since two of our guests have used UHC for artistic projects, I expect one or both of them will respond to some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cult_of_the_Amateur/ Cult of the Amateur]-style criticisms. I am especially interested to hear whether our speakers think UHC improves the quality of creative/design work that can be accomplished or aggregated from UHC or whether it represents a possible step backward from looking to established professionals for this kind of work. Based on the backgrounds of the speakers, I would imagine Bjoern Hartman and Aaron Koblin will argue that UHC presents the possibility for improvement over the previous paradigm of established professionals. I imagine one or more of the speakers may believe that UHC doesn't really represent a change in quality of such higher level work, but just a difference in kind.

Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.

Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are "independent contractors" or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?

Franny:
Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy. As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive. I just don't think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today's session.

I would also be interested to hear our guests' thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?

:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, "Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?" or "What if it turned out that someone was a child?" or "Won't your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?" or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I'm a law student and that's not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.

:Reuben: I wonder how feasible it is to actually make any real money as a mechanical turk. All of the tasks I tried took me at least a few minutes to read the instructions and then a little bit of time to actually perform the task. I suppose if someone did the same repetitive task over and over it would cut down on the amount of downtime and you could more quickly make some money, but at $.02 a task (which seems to be a going rate), even if you spent as little as 30 seconds on each HIT, it works out to $2.40 an hour. You need to pay about $.07 a task to add to the basic minimum wage. I see how the employers/taskmasters benefit, but aside from the novelty, I don't see any real benefit for the turkers. I'd love to hear from Lukas what the average worker makes doing CrowdFlower tasks.

Juan:

By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers' career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works.

Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?

Sheel: The 'quality history of workers' that Juan alluded to is particularly interesting to me. Crowdflower seems to integrate the 'reputation' of workers in ways that Mechanical Turk doesn't do for its HITs. I'd like to hear Lukas's thoughts on this mechanism---how easy is it for users who have a low reputation to just start all over, taking the good (long history with website) away from the bad (similar to the online reputation possibilities that JZ mentioned in his book)? Does CrowdFlower only track user names in this manner? Also, would Crowdflower ever consider having tasks cost a higher amount for the vendor with the stipulation that only those with a certain reputation will be able to perform them?

Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?

Yosuke:
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.

Vickie: My guess here is that the "creative types" as Andrew called them are going to be psyched about the creative potential of mechanical turk but less satisfied by the "mundane tasks" that are fueled through the programs (as stated by Aaron Koblin in this video http://vimeo.com/3199933). I believe Koblin and Hartmann are not going to be happy to hear as much about CrowdFlower. Koblin, specifically said in his presentation in this video that he limited the amount of times his contributors could use HITs for his art projects. Unlike CrowdFlower Koblin isn't looking to use Turkers as steadfast blinded workers. He seems very conscious of all the Marxist qualms with the program.

Lien: I also agree that the speakers will try to keep it positive. I'm however interested to hear whether these "human computing companies" ran into law suits already because of legal issues, both in the EU and other continents. Further, did they already got (negative?) reactions from governments, human rights organisations, labor organisations, unions, etc. . Also, if a human computing company would be sued by a turk, does it involve the "requester" (as the "employer"?) in the lawsuit? Speaking to my colleagues in Europe, none of them had really heard of this mechanical turk fenomenon. However, I'm sure that taking into account our very strict labor law that highly advantages employees, and strong influence of labor unions, labor regulations will become a huge issue.

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T23:35:28Z

ReubRodriguez:

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are "creatives", I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight.

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.

Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are "independent contractors" or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?

Franny:
Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy. As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive. I just don't think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today's session.

I would also be interested to hear our guests' thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?

:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, "Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?" or "What if it turned out that someone was a child?" or "Won't your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?" or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I'm a law student and that's not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.

:Reuben: I wonder how feasible it is to actually make any real money as a mechanical turk. All of the tasks I tried took me at least a few minutes to read the instructions and then a little bit of time to actually perform the task. I suppose if someone did the same repetitive task over and over it would cut down on the amount of downtime and you could more quickly make some money, but at $.02 a task, even if you spent as little as 30 seconds on each HIT, it works out to $2.40 an hour. With that kind of payment structure, it might be more lucrative to walk around vending machines looking for dropped change. I see how the employers/taskmasters benefit, but aside from the novelty, I don't see any real benefit for the turkers. I'd love to hear from Lukas what the average worker makes doing CrowdFlower tasks.

Juan:

By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers' career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works.

Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?

Sheel: The 'quality history of workers' that Juan alluded to is particularly interesting to me. Crowdflower seems to integrate the 'reputation' of workers in ways that Mechanical Turk doesn't do for its HITs. I'd like to hear Lukas's thoughts on this mechanism---how easy is it for users who have a low reputation to just start all over, taking the good (long history with website) away from the bad (similar to the online reputation possibilities that JZ mentioned in his book)? Does CrowdFlower only track user names in this manner? Also, would Crowdflower ever consider having tasks cost a higher amount for the vendor with the stipulation that only those with a certain reputation will be able to perform them?

Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?

Yosuke:
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.

Vickie: My guess here is that the "creative types" as Andrew called them are going to be psyched about the creative potential of mechanical turk but less satisfied by the "mundane tasks" that are fueled through the programs (as stated by Aaron Koblin in this video http://vimeo.com/3199933). I believe Koblin and Hartmann are not going to be happy to hear as much about CrowdFlower. Koblin, specifically said in his presentation in this video that he limited the amount of times his contributors could use HITs for his art projects. Unlike CrowdFlower Koblin isn't looking to use Turkers as steadfast blinded workers. He seems very conscious of all the Marxist qualms with the program.

Lien: I also agree that the speakers will try to keep it positive. I'm however interested to hear whether these "human computing companies" ran into law suits already because of legal issues, both in the EU and other continents. Further, did they already got (negative?) reactions from governments, human rights organisations, labor organisations, unions, etc. . Also, if a human computing company would be sued by a turk, does it involve the "requester" (as the "employer"?) in the lawsuit? Speaking to my colleagues in Europe, none of them had really heard of this mechanical turk fenomenon. However, I'm sure that taking into account our very strict labor law that highly advantages employees, and strong influence of labor unions, labor regulations will become a huge issue.

Main Page

2010-01-06T20:38:32Z

ReubRodriguez: /* WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS */

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]]. For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here]. All regular class meetings will be at '''Stanford Law School Classroom 280B'''.

This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]]
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]]

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]
*[[The role of intermediaries]]
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings For Class'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 1 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: ''BONUS''''': 2-4pm SLS Room 280B
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed.

*''Bonus Writing Opportunity'': produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft
*Dunstan Hope, BSR

''Readings:''
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 2 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]
*Aaron Koblin

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas' CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Kate Thomas, ''[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]'', SEIU.org Blog, Dec. 10, 2009.
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 3 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

''Guests'':
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 4 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts
*If you're unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

''Guests'':
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 6
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.
*''[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]'', Infodisiac, Dec. 6, 2009.

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 5 Thoughts]]

'''EVENING EVENT: ''BONUS''''': Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at David Hornik's office in Palo Alto after class.

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world.
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 6 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP: ''BONUS''''': 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues.
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet.

''Guests'':
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights
*Mark Surman, Mozilla
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender
*Carl Malamud

''Readings'':
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' Int'l Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 7 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS'':''' Facebook 12:30-2:00pm

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies

''Guests'':
*Glenn Brown, Google
*Kim Scott, Google

''Readings'':
*Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, ''[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]'', 34 Univ. Cal. Davis 151 (2000).
*Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)
*Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]
*Terri Wells, ''[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google 'Death Penalty']'',Search Engine News (2006).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 8 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people. This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site. How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?

''Guests'':
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]
*Micah Schaffer
*Dan Scholnick

''Readings'':
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, & Chen-Bo Zhong, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]'', 45 J. Experimental Social Psychology 1299-1302 (2009).
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 9 Thoughts]]

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Bonus, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm
:Group 1 Presentation of proposed solution (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Reputation Defender, 1pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Group 2 Presentation of proposed solution (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Group 3 Presentation of proposed solution (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21st''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Group 4 Presentation of proposed solution (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Craig Newmark
*Edward Wes

'''WRAP-UP DINNER''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Faculty Lounge

----

<center> '''January 31st''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Day 2 Thoughts

2010-01-06T18:58:38Z

ReubRodriguez: New page: == Cybersecurity == == GNI == Reuben: I think we should all congratulate ourselves on our prognostication skills. A lot of our predictions were right on the money. After reviewing my...

== Cybersecurity ==

== GNI ==

Reuben: I think we should all congratulate ourselves on our prognostication skills. A lot of our predictions were right on the money. After reviewing my notes, I came away with a few main points. It seems the GNI has had two main benefits for those involved. First, it has helped companies establish processes for how they will handle sticky situations that arise in fields of free expression and privacy where previously those concerns went unrepresented or were dealt with an ad hoc scramble. Secondly, GNI has facilitated relationships between companies and human rights organizations that allow the two sides to work together collaboratively to map out strategies and get more effective results.

While the panelists recognized the effectiveness of the GNI in at least certain situations, I was a bit surprised by the degree to which at least some participants seemed to welcome government involvement in order to force more attention on the activities of smaller companies who don't stand out the same way a Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, or CISCO might.

Day 1 Thoughts

2010-01-06T18:29:30Z

ReubRodriguez:

Tyler: I thought JZ's point about "half-assed" censorship was quite interesting. For example, I like the idea that Google created google.cn, while retaining an easy way for people in China to use a Chinese-language, uncensored google.com instead, as a way of convincing the Chinese government that it had taken steps to censor content that it had been ordered to censor but without actually preventing access to anything. A similar example of Microsoft censoring the titles of blogs but not their content was also given that I found interesting. I wonder if there are other, more subtle, behaviors that have been built into products that allow for the appearance of censorship without actually fully implementing the censorship?
: Jason: But notice that how effective this all is depends on what you think about how powerfully the "Principle of Bovinity" operates (amazingly, there appears to be no Wikipedia article on this topic - someone get on that! - but you can check out [http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/11/lawrence-lessig/continuing-the-work-of-code/ this Lessig article] and scroll down to the second block quote). By this, I mean that if 99% of all users use Baidu or Google.cn without checking Google.com, isn't that more than enough control for the whole censorship project to accomplish its goal? Isn't "good enough" censorship really all the government is looking for? Those who believe in the strong operation of this principle might be highly skeptical of "work-around" solutions, even if they seem really easy to people like us. Here's Lessig in ''Code'' (quoted in that Cato link): "I think it is as likely that the majority of people would resist these small but efficient regulators of the Net as it is that cows would resist wire fences. This is who we are, and this is why these regulations work."

Also interesting is the distinction between the two types of countries that may want to filter online content. The first type, like Saudi Arabia, can filter content as it comes into the country because its network topology is small and simple enough that each incoming server can be configured to support the government-ordered censorship. The second type, like China, has too large of a network to rely on an approach that is working in Saudi Arabia and must rely more heavily on the content servers/providers doing the filtering themselves. Are there steps, such as encrypting URLs to make keyword filtering more difficult, that could make filtering more difficult in either of the types of countries?

Reuben: I think a good point to remember for this class is that there are approaches to solving problems other than law, be it a technical solution, an incentives based solution, or other. JZ is right that lawyers and law students can fall into the trap of just saying "There oughtta be a law!" and minimizing the difficulty of actually getting a law passed.

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T19:44:15Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Dunstan */

= Mark =

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.
: Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope's opinions. Yahoo and Google have faced real backlash for their actions, and GNI serves as something of a safety net against that backlash. We could also ask Chandler if he can imagine how GNI could be structured such that it would be worthwhile for Cisco to join--it would be interesting to see if what he says matches up with what Cosson says GNI needs to do to recruit new members.
:: Andrew: I doubt Chandler would be cynical (frank?) enough to respond this way, but Cisco may be shielded from the kind of "PR risks" that Yahoo/Google/Microsoft face, since their products and services reside below the content layer and are less intuitively understandable to the general public. Along these lines, I hope to hear some discussion about the sources of contention between stakeholders at different architectural layers. How do differences in the type of actions governments request from these companies translate to materially different policy preferences, given the extreme broadness of the principles at issue?
:: Hector: I agree with Andrew and wonder whether Cisco will go to lengths to emphasize the hardware-side of its products/services. This may be a more palatable version of JZ's "gun's don't kill people" framing: "Look, we provide hardware and the software interfaces that are infinitely customizable." Such an argument works only to the extent that the products/services are general-use (generative?) and the extent that CISCO is '''truly''' removed from any immoral end-use.
: Jason: I doubt that he will emphasize ROI and the need to make money to a group like ours - or, at least he won't explicitly mention his company's desire to make billions of dollars. Instead, I suspect that Mark will emphasize the need for more Internet infrastructure in developing countries, and the uncertain effect of the GNI in terms of continuing to do business everywhere. He would be right about that need - see, for instance, the Internet density map [http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worlddotblack.jpg here]. So he can ask us rhetorically, "What is Cisco supposed to do? Don't you cyberlaw students want people in China and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and Africa to get online, too? If so, those countries need our hardware - and we can't choose who runs their governments!" And you know what? If he says this, he will have a very, very good point.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Sanford Lewis: I predict that Mr. Chandler will not discuss in very much depth the extent to which external stakeholder and stockholder pressure has shaped company policy, unless he is prompted by student questions to discuss this.

Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an "implementation / repetition" of international standards. If a certain company (for whatever reason) does not want to join the GNI, this company still has to comply with these standards. To play the devil's advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company's image and reputation? Furthermore, the concept of the GNI (sort of self- regulation) is a very American concept. European companies are not very familiar with this kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey to certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written that, if a company would follow these principles, it would still not comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would an European company then join the initiative and do all the effort (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?
: Elisabeth: I also wonder how true it is that these are "international" standards, rather than American or American/European standards.

= Dunstan =
Tyler: I believe Dunstan will try and draw a distinction between situations involving two types of countries. The first type is countries with laws in accordance with GNI principles but that are not enforced or poorly enforced. The second type is countries with laws that on their face are violative of GNI principles. I hope Dunstan will discuss strategies that corporations should use for situations that arise involving both types of countries and the different approaches that GNI stakeholders can collectively take to preemptively forestall problems in each of the two types of countries.
: Daniel: It would be great if we further explored the (blurring) division between these two country-types. Was Google's first move in the negotiation with Turkey - accepting to block videos insulting AtatÃ¼rk, but only within the country's limits - OK under the GNI principles? How much can a country legitimately curb freedom of speech, according to the GNI framework? IMO, its diplomatic language allows for an "American" interpretation, but also for an "European" one and perhaps others even more restrictive.
Reuben: I'd be interested in hearing how BSR's involvement with the GNI was different than corporate social responsibility projects in other economic sectors and how that speaks to the uniqueness of ICT and these issues.

= Chuck =

Tyler: I expect Chuck to express frustration that more corporations have not signed up for GNI and identify some specific reasons why he thinks GNI has so far been unable to recruit any additional corporations from the initial roster of three (Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft). I also hope that Chuck discusses what preparations Microsoft has made to allow GNI auditors access the sensitive Microsoft information.

Juan: As a stakeholders unite, GNI is supposed to have more flexibility and accommodation than its legislative alternatives, such as GOFA. With this flexibility, how will it attract new members in China, such as Baidu (www.baidu.com, the market leader of search services), Kaixin network (www.kaixin001.com, the most popular social network website in China, which is a knockoff of facebook), Tudou (www.tudou.com, the biggest video site mainly serving local videos) and etc. Facing with a very powerful government, I doubt they will have an incentive to join the GNI.
Another question is what is the role of GNI? If company challenges the government request, government would not buy it, what actions would company be supposed to take? Will GNI interface with government? By challenging the government request, the company may be punished by government, either directly or indirectly. Is there any benefit for the company to take the risk?
Will GNI work for China? Can it enlighten Chinese government to change its position on human rights and free expression?
Should GNI have multiple standards on human rights protection in different countries, since different countries have different views on human rights.

Reuben: With regards to the relationship between Chuck and Mark, I think that while Chuck will make statements supporting the GNI, he is unlikely to challenge Mark or CISCO to join. I'd also expect Chuck to express some reticence in allowing auditors too much freedom to access sensitive information.

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T19:31:20Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Chuck */

= Mark =

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.
: Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope's opinions. Yahoo and Google have faced real backlash for their actions, and GNI serves as something of a safety net against that backlash. We could also ask Chandler if he can imagine how GNI could be structured such that it would be worthwhile for Cisco to join--it would be interesting to see if what he says matches up with what Cosson says GNI needs to do to recruit new members.
:: Andrew: I doubt Chandler would be cynical (frank?) enough to respond this way, but Cisco may be shielded from the kind of "PR risks" that Yahoo/Google/Microsoft face, since their products and services reside below the content layer and are less intuitively understandable to the general public. Along these lines, I hope to hear some discussion about the sources of contention between stakeholders at different architectural layers. How do differences in the type of actions governments request from these companies translate to materially different policy preferences, given the extreme broadness of the principles at issue?
:: Hector: I agree with Andrew and wonder whether Cisco will go to lengths to emphasize the hardware-side of its products/services. This may be a more palatable version of JZ's "gun's don't kill people" framing: "Look, we provide hardware and the software interfaces that are infinitely customizable." Such an argument works only to the extent that the products/services are general-use (generative?) and the extent that CISCO is '''truly''' removed from any immoral end-use.
: Jason: I doubt that he will emphasize ROI and the need to make money to a group like ours - or, at least he won't explicitly mention his company's desire to make billions of dollars. Instead, I suspect that Mark will emphasize the need for more Internet infrastructure in developing countries, and the uncertain effect of the GNI in terms of continuing to do business everywhere. He would be right about that need - see, for instance, the Internet density map [http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worlddotblack.jpg here]. So he can ask us rhetorically, "What is Cisco supposed to do? Don't you cyberlaw students want people in China and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and Africa to get online, too? If so, those countries need our hardware - and we can't choose who runs their governments!" And you know what? If he says this, he will have a very, very good point.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Sanford Lewis: I predict that Mr. Chandler will not discuss in very much depth the extent to which external stakeholder and stockholder pressure has shaped company policy, unless he is prompted by student questions to discuss this.

Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an "implementation / repetition" of international standards. If a certain company (for whatever reason) does not want to join the GNI, this company still has to comply with these standards. To play the devil's advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company's image and reputation? Furthermore, the concept of the GNI (sort of self- regulation) is a very American concept. European companies are not very familiar with this kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey to certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written that, if a company would follow these principles, it would still not comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would an European company then join the initiative and do all the effort (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?
: Elisabeth: I also wonder how true it is that these are "international" standards, rather than American or American/European standards.

= Dunstan =
Tyler: I believe Dunstan will try and draw a distinction between situations involving two types of countries. The first type is countries with laws in accordance with GNI principles but that are not enforced or poorly enforced. The second type is countries with laws that on their face are violative of GNI principles. I hope Dunstan will discuss strategies that corporations should use for situations that arise involving both types of countries and the different approaches that GNI stakeholders can collectively take to preemptively forestall problems in each of the two types of countries.
: Daniel: It would be great if we further explored the (blurring) division between these two country-types. Was Google's first move in the negotiation with Turkey - accepting to block videos insulting AtatÃ¼rk, but only within the country's limits - OK under the GNI principles? How much can a country legitimately curb freedom of speech, according to the GNI framework? IMO, its diplomatic language allows for an "American" interpretation, but also for an "European" one and perhaps others even more restrictive.

= Chuck =

Tyler: I expect Chuck to express frustration that more corporations have not signed up for GNI and identify some specific reasons why he thinks GNI has so far been unable to recruit any additional corporations from the initial roster of three (Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft). I also hope that Chuck discusses what preparations Microsoft has made to allow GNI auditors access the sensitive Microsoft information.

Juan: As a stakeholders unite, GNI is supposed to have more flexibility and accommodation than its legislative alternatives, such as GOFA. With this flexibility, how will it attract new members in China, such as Baidu (www.baidu.com, the market leader of search services), Kaixin network (www.kaixin001.com, the most popular social network website in China, which is a knockoff of facebook), Tudou (www.tudou.com, the biggest video site mainly serving local videos) and etc. Facing with a very powerful government, I doubt they will have an incentive to join the GNI.
Another question is what is the role of GNI? If company challenges the government request, government would not buy it, what actions would company be supposed to take? Will GNI interface with government? By challenging the government request, the company may be punished by government, either directly or indirectly. Is there any benefit for the company to take the risk?
Will GNI works for China? Can it enlighten Chinese government to change its position on human rights and free expression?
Should GNI have multiple standards on human rights protection in different countries, since different countries have different views on human rights.

Reuben: With regards to the relationship between Chuck and Mark, I think that while Chuck will make statements supporting the GNI, he is unlikely to challenge Mark or CISCO to join. I'd also expect Chuck to express some reticence in allowing auditors too much freedom to access sensitive information.

GNI

2010-01-04T23:49:19Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Metrics/Accountability */

= Background on the Global Network Initiative =

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) designed to address issues of privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, and more broadly in "information and communications technologies." The constituent stakeholder groups are companies (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo so far), academics (including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School), socially-responsible investors and human rights groups (including the EFF). Although initial membership features many prominent players in the field, not all of them signed on without concern about GNI's future. For example, in its [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/gni/signon_letter.txt signon letter], the EFF expressed concern about serious omissions from the GNI's founding documents.

The GNI's framework is laid out in its three founding documents: (1) The Core Principles, (2) The Implementation Guidelines, and (3) The Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. The GNI's objectives are to have information & communication (ICT) companies enroll in the initiative by paying dues and then upholding the GNI's principles according to its implementation guidelines.

According to Caroline Nolan, who played a key role in the development of the GNI, it takes its inspiration from other MSIs and corporate codes of conduct, including the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Principles Sullivan principles]. Current participants have also been engaged with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Voluntary Principles. The GNI has attempted to learn lessons from those initiatives, in particular lessons that could improve the GNI's accountability and reporting framework.

One of the GNI's main challenges is identifying the circumstances under which participating companies should stand up to government demands that infringe on their users' freedom of expression and privacy. It is also very challenging for companies to operate with typically very broad government regulations that affect freedom of expression and privacy. Another serious problem is identifying violations of the GNI's principles when the principles are themselves very broad. Caroline gave an example of child labor violations, which are comparatively easier to identify.

Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center provides an excellent introduction to the GNI and the context surrounding its development in a [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf chapter] from his book, "Access Controlled".

== The Core Principles ==

The GNI is primarily designed to protect Freedom of Expression and Privacy on the internet. According to the GNI, these principles are derived from standard international doctrines including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The posture of the principles is for the participating companies to uphold international standards of freedom of expression and privacy in the face of pressure from local laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php principles] attempt to take into account the realities of business by requiring that "company Board, senior officers and others responsible for key decisions that impact freedom of expression and privacy" are fully briefed on the principles and that companies take responsibilities for their own actions and for those of their partners and supply chain on a "best effort" basis.

== The Implementation Guidelines ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php document] is designed to give companies that enroll in the GNI a framework for ensuring that their obligation to uphold the GNI's principles that they agreed to uphold is met to a standard that is acceptable to the GNI.

== The Governance Framework ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php framework] describes the structure of the GNI, including its timeline for growth.

= Legislative Alternatives to the GNI =

As Maclay explained in his "Access Controlled" chapter, Yahoo's provision of information leading to the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao was a driving example of the need for stronger protection of human rights by ICT companies. Congressman Lantos's [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lantos110607.htm admonishment] of Yahoo provides an example of Congressional disapproval of Yahoo's disregard of human rights principles, and in part explains the motivation for the introduction of legislation to address the problem. At this time, Yahoo was asked to endorse the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

GOFA is an attempt to foster the same ideals espoused by the GNI, but through regulation rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration. Nolan cited concern that given the complexities of the regulatory environment, GOFA, would be unable to cope with the dynamic nature of the ICT sector or address and anticipate the complex global problems involving online filtering, censorship and surveillance practices. John Palfrey, also of the Berkman Center, agreed in his Congressional [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/20/testimony-on-internet-filtering-and-surveillance/ testimony] that the GOFA is too "blunt" to properly address the issues. The Center for Democracy & Technology, while agreeing with the goals of the GOFA, has [http://www.cdt.org/international/censorship/20080505gofa.pdf published] disagreement with some of its implementation.

John Ruggie, a political scientist formerly associated with the UN, provides an excellent [http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf analysis] of the way that government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights overlap and are related. While his paper is not specifically on the topic of the GNI or the GOFA, it provides excellent context for how legislation and initiatives like the GNI can be structured.

Is legislation a feasible alternative to the GNI, or can it be used to supplement and foster initiatives like the GNI?

= The Difficult Issues =

== Growing GNI ==

Currently, GNI has three participating, dues-paying member companies: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. All of these companies were founded in the United States and have headquarters in the United States. All of these companies offer similar internet services and serve similar customer needs. The GNI will be unable to have a lasting role in improving freedom of expression and privacy in "information and communications technologies" or live up to its "Global" title unless it can expand its membership geographically and service-wise.

One issue facing the GNI's future growth is that the people developing the GNI worked together for years. These people persevered throughout a difficult process, and were able to reach compromise because they were on the verge of achieving their goal of starting the GNI. Newcomers will not have been through this process, but will need to feel equally important. How can the trust built between the initial stakeholders scale to newcomers?

Another issue is that no telecommunications companies are enrolled in the GNI, although several participated in the development of the GNI and dropped out before it launched. Nolan cited concerns about the structure of the GNI, budget and the potentially onerous accountability process as possible reasons why these telecommunications companies failed to join the GNI upon launch.

Senators Durbin and Coburn sent a [http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=316922 letter] to 26 software companies urging them to sign up for the GNI. In this letter, the senators imply that the GNI will not be able to advance human rights unless more companies enroll. Nolan believes that the GNI can only truly affect governments in a positive manner if its membership increases. The Senators reference the recent use of the internet by Iranian protesters as an example of the expressive power of the internet.

What can incentivise companies to join the GNI or similar initiatives and uphold its principles?

== Metrics/Accountability ==

How can the impact of the GNI be measured? It is easy to make a checklist to ensure that companies are meeting the explicit requirements of GNI membership. However, the introduction of external auditors to ensure more substantive compliance is presently a hugely contentious issue. The GNI's governance framework requires that, by 2012, external auditors play a role in evaluating compliance with the GNI's principles. Human rights group form one of the GNI's four constituent groups, and need to feel like they have an actual sense of what companies are doing. Nolan emphasizes that this process must not be a "gotcha" process, but rather a process that is informed by evolution and learning.

The new governance charter has sparked a huge debate about reporting, auditing, who picks the auditors, who pays for the auditors and how much power they should have.

How should this accountability framework function? How can input on the users of participating companies' users be measured?

== Institutional Issues ==

Members of GNI's board are drawn from each of the GNI's four constituencies. In the most current revised governance charter, the board is to be composed of eight representatives from participating companies, four representatives from participating NGOs, two representatives from participating investor organizations, two representatives from participating academic organizations and an independent chair. At least one member from each constituency must be present to reach a quorum.

The charter also mandates that no more than one representative from a single company, NGO, investor or academic institution be on the board at any one time. Additionally, for issues requiring a "supermajority" of the board, 50% of each constituency group's board members must approve. "Supermajority" issues include altering or creating exceptions to the GNI's core documents, determining the compliance of a GNI participant or selecting an executive director.

Are the weightings given to each constituency group appropriate?

In the same charter, board member terms are to be two years in length and renewable for one term only. An exception to this rule is that founding company members shall serve three terms of two years.

What are the optimal board term limits?

== Complaint Mechanism ==

How can a system be designed under which individuals whose human rights are being infringed can report these violations? This system would need to be enormously scalable, accessible, usable and be able to determine the validity of complaints. The accessibility of this system will be especially crucial countries where internet access may be limited, because those will be the most likely countries from which complaints will arrive.

Nolan believes that a good input/complaint process must be a core feature of GNI for its own good governance. How can this system be developed?

== Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool ==

The GNI is attempting to develop a human rights impact assessment tool for use by members and others. This tool would help companies evaluate potential impact of human rights when they are deciding to enter a new market. This tool would be used to inform business decisions by helping to assess risks and opportunities. This tool would be a way to leverage the pool of experts that are associated with the GNI.

One difficult issue is the group of users that the GNI would make the tool available to. Would it be released to members only to incentivize membership? Or would this tool be available to any company will to make use of it with the goal of generally fostering human rights advancements?

How should this tool function?

GNI

2010-01-04T23:47:37Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Growing GNI */

= Background on the Global Network Initiative =

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) designed to address issues of privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, and more broadly in "information and communications technologies." The constituent stakeholder groups are companies (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo so far), academics (including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School), socially-responsible investors and human rights groups (including the EFF). Although initial membership features many prominent players in the field, not all of them signed on without concern about GNI's future. For example, in its [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/gni/signon_letter.txt signon letter], the EFF expressed concern about serious omissions from the GNI's founding documents.

The GNI's framework is laid out in its three founding documents: (1) The Core Principles, (2) The Implementation Guidelines, and (3) The Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. The GNI's objectives are to have information & communication (ICT) companies enroll in the initiative by paying dues and then upholding the GNI's principles according to its implementation guidelines.

According to Caroline Nolan, who played a key role in the development of the GNI, it takes its inspiration from other MSIs and corporate codes of conduct, including the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Principles Sullivan principles]. Current participants have also been engaged with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Voluntary Principles. The GNI has attempted to learn lessons from those initiatives, in particular lessons that could improve the GNI's accountability and reporting framework.

One of the GNI's main challenges is identifying the circumstances under which participating companies should stand up to government demands that infringe on their users' freedom of expression and privacy. It is also very challenging for companies to operate with typically very broad government regulations that affect freedom of expression and privacy. Another serious problem is identifying violations of the GNI's principles when the principles are themselves very broad. Caroline gave an example of child labor violations, which are comparatively easier to identify.

Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center provides an excellent introduction to the GNI and the context surrounding its development in a [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf chapter] from his book, "Access Controlled".

== The Core Principles ==

The GNI is primarily designed to protect Freedom of Expression and Privacy on the internet. According to the GNI, these principles are derived from standard international doctrines including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The posture of the principles is for the participating companies to uphold international standards of freedom of expression and privacy in the face of pressure from local laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php principles] attempt to take into account the realities of business by requiring that "company Board, senior officers and others responsible for key decisions that impact freedom of expression and privacy" are fully briefed on the principles and that companies take responsibilities for their own actions and for those of their partners and supply chain on a "best effort" basis.

== The Implementation Guidelines ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php document] is designed to give companies that enroll in the GNI a framework for ensuring that their obligation to uphold the GNI's principles that they agreed to uphold is met to a standard that is acceptable to the GNI.

== The Governance Framework ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php framework] describes the structure of the GNI, including its timeline for growth.

= Legislative Alternatives to the GNI =

As Maclay explained in his "Access Controlled" chapter, Yahoo's provision of information leading to the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao was a driving example of the need for stronger protection of human rights by ICT companies. Congressman Lantos's [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lantos110607.htm admonishment] of Yahoo provides an example of Congressional disapproval of Yahoo's disregard of human rights principles, and in part explains the motivation for the introduction of legislation to address the problem. At this time, Yahoo was asked to endorse the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

GOFA is an attempt to foster the same ideals espoused by the GNI, but through regulation rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration. Nolan cited concern that given the complexities of the regulatory environment, GOFA, would be unable to cope with the dynamic nature of the ICT sector or address and anticipate the complex global problems involving online filtering, censorship and surveillance practices. John Palfrey, also of the Berkman Center, agreed in his Congressional [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/20/testimony-on-internet-filtering-and-surveillance/ testimony] that the GOFA is too "blunt" to properly address the issues. The Center for Democracy & Technology, while agreeing with the goals of the GOFA, has [http://www.cdt.org/international/censorship/20080505gofa.pdf published] disagreement with some of its implementation.

John Ruggie, a political scientist formerly associated with the UN, provides an excellent [http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf analysis] of the way that government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights overlap and are related. While his paper is not specifically on the topic of the GNI or the GOFA, it provides excellent context for how legislation and initiatives like the GNI can be structured.

Is legislation a feasible alternative to the GNI, or can it be used to supplement and foster initiatives like the GNI?

= The Difficult Issues =

== Growing GNI ==

Currently, GNI has three participating, dues-paying member companies: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. All of these companies were founded in the United States and have headquarters in the United States. All of these companies offer similar internet services and serve similar customer needs. The GNI will be unable to have a lasting role in improving freedom of expression and privacy in "information and communications technologies" or live up to its "Global" title unless it can expand its membership geographically and service-wise.

One issue facing the GNI's future growth is that the people developing the GNI worked together for years. These people persevered throughout a difficult process, and were able to reach compromise because they were on the verge of achieving their goal of starting the GNI. Newcomers will not have been through this process, but will need to feel equally important. How can the trust built between the initial stakeholders scale to newcomers?

Another issue is that no telecommunications companies are enrolled in the GNI, although several participated in the development of the GNI and dropped out before it launched. Nolan cited concerns about the structure of the GNI, budget and the potentially onerous accountability process as possible reasons why these telecommunications companies failed to join the GNI upon launch.

Senators Durbin and Coburn sent a [http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=316922 letter] to 26 software companies urging them to sign up for the GNI. In this letter, the senators imply that the GNI will not be able to advance human rights unless more companies enroll. Nolan believes that the GNI can only truly affect governments in a positive manner if its membership increases. The Senators reference the recent use of the internet by Iranian protesters as an example of the expressive power of the internet.

What can incentivise companies to join the GNI or similar initiatives and uphold its principles?

== Metrics/Accountability ==

How can the impact of the GNI be measured? It is easy to make a checklist to ensure that companies are meeting the explicit requirements of GI membership. However, the introduction of external auditors to ensure more substantive compliance is present is a hugely contentious issue. The GNI's governance framework requires that, by 2012, external auditors play a role in evaluating compliance with the GNI's principles. Human rights group form one of the GNI's four constituent groups, and need to feel like they have an actual sense of what companies are doing. Nolan emphasizes that this process must not be a "gotcha" process, but rather a process that is informed by evolution and learning.

The new governance charter has sparked a huge debate about reporting, auditing, who picks the auditors, who pays for the auditors and how much power they should have.

How should this accountability framework function? How can input on the users of participating companies' users be measured?

== Institutional Issues ==

Members of GNI's board are drawn from each of the GNI's four constituencies. In the most current revised governance charter, the board is to be composed of eight representatives from participating companies, four representatives from participating NGOs, two representatives from participating investor organizations, two representatives from participating academic organizations and an independent chair. At least one member from each constituency must be present to reach a quorum.

The charter also mandates that no more than one representative from a single company, NGO, investor or academic institution be on the board at any one time. Additionally, for issues requiring a "supermajority" of the board, 50% of each constituency group's board members must approve. "Supermajority" issues include altering or creating exceptions to the GNI's core documents, determining the compliance of a GNI participant or selecting an executive director.

Are the weightings given to each constituency group appropriate?

In the same charter, board member terms are to be two years in length and renewable for one term only. An exception to this rule is that founding company members shall serve three terms of two years.

What are the optimal board term limits?

== Complaint Mechanism ==

How can a system be designed under which individuals whose human rights are being infringed can report these violations? This system would need to be enormously scalable, accessible, usable and be able to determine the validity of complaints. The accessibility of this system will be especially crucial countries where internet access may be limited, because those will be the most likely countries from which complaints will arrive.

Nolan believes that a good input/complaint process must be a core feature of GNI for its own good governance. How can this system be developed?

== Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool ==

The GNI is attempting to develop a human rights impact assessment tool for use by members and others. This tool would help companies evaluate potential impact of human rights when they are deciding to enter a new market. This tool would be used to inform business decisions by helping to assess risks and opportunities. This tool would be a way to leverage the pool of experts that are associated with the GNI.

One difficult issue is the group of users that the GNI would make the tool available to. Would it be released to members only to incentivize membership? Or would this tool be available to any company will to make use of it with the goal of generally fostering human rights advancements?

How should this tool function?

GNI

2010-01-04T23:42:36Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Background on the Global Network Initiative */

= Background on the Global Network Initiative =

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) designed to address issues of privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, and more broadly in "information and communications technologies." The constituent stakeholder groups are companies (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo so far), academics (including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School), socially-responsible investors and human rights groups (including the EFF). Although initial membership features many prominent players in the field, not all of them signed on without concern about GNI's future. For example, in its [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/gni/signon_letter.txt signon letter], the EFF expressed concern about serious omissions from the GNI's founding documents.

The GNI's framework is laid out in its three founding documents: (1) The Core Principles, (2) The Implementation Guidelines, and (3) The Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. The GNI's objectives are to have information & communication (ICT) companies enroll in the initiative by paying dues and then upholding the GNI's principles according to its implementation guidelines.

According to Caroline Nolan, who played a key role in the development of the GNI, it takes its inspiration from other MSIs and corporate codes of conduct, including the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Principles Sullivan principles]. Current participants have also been engaged with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Voluntary Principles. The GNI has attempted to learn lessons from those initiatives, in particular lessons that could improve the GNI's accountability and reporting framework.

One of the GNI's main challenges is identifying the circumstances under which participating companies should stand up to government demands that infringe on their users' freedom of expression and privacy. It is also very challenging for companies to operate with typically very broad government regulations that affect freedom of expression and privacy. Another serious problem is identifying violations of the GNI's principles when the principles are themselves very broad. Caroline gave an example of child labor violations, which are comparatively easier to identify.

Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center provides an excellent introduction to the GNI and the context surrounding its development in a [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf chapter] from his book, "Access Controlled".

== The Core Principles ==

The GNI is primarily designed to protect Freedom of Expression and Privacy on the internet. According to the GNI, these principles are derived from standard international doctrines including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The posture of the principles is for the participating companies to uphold international standards of freedom of expression and privacy in the face of pressure from local laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php principles] attempt to take into account the realities of business by requiring that "company Board, senior officers and others responsible for key decisions that impact freedom of expression and privacy" are fully briefed on the principles and that companies take responsibilities for their own actions and for those of their partners and supply chain on a "best effort" basis.

== The Implementation Guidelines ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php document] is designed to give companies that enroll in the GNI a framework for ensuring that their obligation to uphold the GNI's principles that they agreed to uphold is met to a standard that is acceptable to the GNI.

== The Governance Framework ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php framework] describes the structure of the GNI, including its timeline for growth.

= Legislative Alternatives to the GNI =

As Maclay explained in his "Access Controlled" chapter, Yahoo's provision of information leading to the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao was a driving example of the need for stronger protection of human rights by ICT companies. Congressman Lantos's [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lantos110607.htm admonishment] of Yahoo provides an example of Congressional disapproval of Yahoo's disregard of human rights principles, and in part explains the motivation for the introduction of legislation to address the problem. At this time, Yahoo was asked to endorse the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

GOFA is an attempt to foster the same ideals espoused by the GNI, but through regulation rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration. Nolan cited concern that given the complexities of the regulatory environment, GOFA, would be unable to cope with the dynamic nature of the ICT sector or address and anticipate the complex global problems involving online filtering, censorship and surveillance practices. John Palfrey, also of the Berkman Center, agreed in his Congressional [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/20/testimony-on-internet-filtering-and-surveillance/ testimony] that the GOFA is too "blunt" to properly address the issues. The Center for Democracy & Technology, while agreeing with the goals of the GOFA, has [http://www.cdt.org/international/censorship/20080505gofa.pdf published] disagreement with some of its implementation.

John Ruggie, a political scientist formerly associated with the UN, provides an excellent [http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf analysis] of the way that government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights overlap and are related. While his paper is not specifically on the topic of the GNI or the GOFA, it provides excellent context for how legislation and initiatives like the GNI can be structured.

Is legislation a feasible alternative to the GNI, or can it be used to supplement and foster initiatives like the GNI?

= The Difficult Issues =

== Growing GNI ==

Currently, GNI has three participating, due-paying member companies: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. All of these companies were founded in the United States and have headquarters in the United States. All of these companies offer similar internet services and serve similar customer needs. The GNI will be unable to have a lasting role in improving freedom of expression and privacy in "information and communications technologies" or live up to its "Global" title unless it can expand its membership geographically and service-wise.

One issue facing the GNI's future growth is that the people developing the GNI worked together for years. These people persevered throughout a difficult process, and were able to reach compromise because they were on the verge of achieving their goal of starting the GNI. Newcomers will not have been through this process, but will need to feel equally important. How can the trust built between the initial stakeholders scale to newcomers?

Another issue is that no telecommunications companies are enrolled in the GNI, although several participated in the development of the GNI and dropped out before it launched. Nolan cited concerns about the structure of the GNI, budget and the potentially onerous accountability process as possible reasons why these telecommunications companies failed to join the GNI upon launch.

Senators Durbin and Coburn sent a [http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=316922 letter] to 26 software companies urging them to sign up for the GNI. In this letter, the senators imply that the GNI will not be able to advance human rights unless more companies enroll. Nolan believes that the GNI can only truly affect governments in a positive manner if its membership increases. The Senators reference the recent use of the internet by Iranian protesters as an example of the expressive power of the internet.

What can incentivise companies to join the GNI or similar initiatives and uphold its principles?

== Metrics/Accountability ==

How can the impact of the GNI be measured? It is easy to make a checklist to ensure that companies are meeting the explicit requirements of GI membership. However, the introduction of external auditors to ensure more substantive compliance is present is a hugely contentious issue. The GNI's governance framework requires that, by 2012, external auditors play a role in evaluating compliance with the GNI's principles. Human rights group form one of the GNI's four constituent groups, and need to feel like they have an actual sense of what companies are doing. Nolan emphasizes that this process must not be a "gotcha" process, but rather a process that is informed by evolution and learning.

The new governance charter has sparked a huge debate about reporting, auditing, who picks the auditors, who pays for the auditors and how much power they should have.

How should this accountability framework function? How can input on the users of participating companies' users be measured?

== Institutional Issues ==

Members of GNI's board are drawn from each of the GNI's four constituencies. In the most current revised governance charter, the board is to be composed of eight representatives from participating companies, four representatives from participating NGOs, two representatives from participating investor organizations, two representatives from participating academic organizations and an independent chair. At least one member from each constituency must be present to reach a quorum.

The charter also mandates that no more than one representative from a single company, NGO, investor or academic institution be on the board at any one time. Additionally, for issues requiring a "supermajority" of the board, 50% of each constituency group's board members must approve. "Supermajority" issues include altering or creating exceptions to the GNI's core documents, determining the compliance of a GNI participant or selecting an executive director.

Are the weightings given to each constituency group appropriate?

In the same charter, board member terms are to be two years in length and renewable for one term only. An exception to this rule is that founding company members shall serve three terms of two years.

What are the optimal board term limits?

== Complaint Mechanism ==

How can a system be designed under which individuals whose human rights are being infringed can report these violations? This system would need to be enormously scalable, accessible, usable and be able to determine the validity of complaints. The accessibility of this system will be especially crucial countries where internet access may be limited, because those will be the most likely countries from which complaints will arrive.

Nolan believes that a good input/complaint process must be a core feature of GNI for its own good governance. How can this system be developed?

== Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool ==

The GNI is attempting to develop a human rights impact assessment tool for use by members and others. This tool would help companies evaluate potential impact of human rights when they are deciding to enter a new market. This tool would be used to inform business decisions by helping to assess risks and opportunities. This tool would be a way to leverage the pool of experts that are associated with the GNI.

One difficult issue is the group of users that the GNI would make the tool available to. Would it be released to members only to incentivize membership? Or would this tool be available to any company will to make use of it with the goal of generally fostering human rights advancements?

How should this tool function?

GNI

2010-01-04T23:41:34Z

ReubRodriguez: /* Background on the Global Network Initiative */

= Background on the Global Network Initiative =

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formally launched in December 2008. The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) designed to address issues of privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, and more broadly in "information and communications technologies." The constituent stakeholder groups are companies (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo so far), academics (including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School), socially-responsible investors and human rights groups (including the EFF). Although initial membership features many prominent players in the field, not all of them signed on without concern about GNI's future. For example, in its [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/gni/signon_letter.txt signon letter], the EFF expressed concern about serious omissions from the GNI's founding documents.

The GNI's framework is laid out in its three founding documents: (1) The Core Principles, (2) The Implementation Guidelines, and (3) The Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework. The GNI's objectives are to have information & communication (ICT) companies enroll in the initiative by paying dues and then upholding the GNI's principles according to its implementation guidelines.

According to Caroline Nolan, who played a key role in the development of the GNI, it takes its inspiration from other MSIs and corporate codes of conduct, including the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Principles Sullivan principles]. Current participants have also been engaged with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Voluntary Principles. The GNI has attempted to learn lessons from those initiatives, in particular lessons that could improve the GNI's accountability and reporting framework.

One of the GNI's main challenges is identifying the circumstances under which participating companies should stand up to government demands that infringe on their users' freedom of expression and privacy. It is also very challenging for companies to operate with typically very broad government regulations that affect freedom of expression and privacy. Another serious problem is identifying violations of the GNI's principles when those principles are themselves very broad. Caroline gave an example of child labor violations, which are comparatively easier to identify.

Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center provides an excellent introduction to the GNI and the context surrounding its development in a [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf chapter] from his book, "Access Controlled".

== The Core Principles ==

The GNI is primarily designed to protect Freedom of Expression and Privacy on the internet. According to the GNI, these principles are derived from standard international doctrines including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The posture of the principles is for the participating companies to uphold international standards of freedom of expression and privacy in the face of pressure from local laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php principles] attempt to take into account the realities of business by requiring that "company Board, senior officers and others responsible for key decisions that impact freedom of expression and privacy" are fully briefed on the principles and that companies take responsibilities for their own actions and for those of their partners and supply chain on a "best effort" basis.

== The Implementation Guidelines ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php document] is designed to give companies that enroll in the GNI a framework for ensuring that their obligation to uphold the GNI's principles that they agreed to uphold is met to a standard that is acceptable to the GNI.

== The Governance Framework ==

This [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php framework] describes the structure of the GNI, including its timeline for growth.

= Legislative Alternatives to the GNI =

As Maclay explained in his "Access Controlled" chapter, Yahoo's provision of information leading to the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao was a driving example of the need for stronger protection of human rights by ICT companies. Congressman Lantos's [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lantos110607.htm admonishment] of Yahoo provides an example of Congressional disapproval of Yahoo's disregard of human rights principles, and in part explains the motivation for the introduction of legislation to address the problem. At this time, Yahoo was asked to endorse the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA).

GOFA is an attempt to foster the same ideals espoused by the GNI, but through regulation rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration. Nolan cited concern that given the complexities of the regulatory environment, GOFA, would be unable to cope with the dynamic nature of the ICT sector or address and anticipate the complex global problems involving online filtering, censorship and surveillance practices. John Palfrey, also of the Berkman Center, agreed in his Congressional [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/20/testimony-on-internet-filtering-and-surveillance/ testimony] that the GOFA is too "blunt" to properly address the issues. The Center for Democracy & Technology, while agreeing with the goals of the GOFA, has [http://www.cdt.org/international/censorship/20080505gofa.pdf published] disagreement with some of its implementation.

John Ruggie, a political scientist formerly associated with the UN, provides an excellent [http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf analysis] of the way that government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights overlap and are related. While his paper is not specifically on the topic of the GNI or the GOFA, it provides excellent context for how legislation and initiatives like the GNI can be structured.

Is legislation a feasible alternative to the GNI, or can it be used to supplement and foster initiatives like the GNI?

= The Difficult Issues =

== Growing GNI ==

Currently, GNI has three participating, due-paying member companies: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. All of these companies were founded in the United States and have headquarters in the United States. All of these companies offer similar internet services and serve similar customer needs. The GNI will be unable to have a lasting role in improving freedom of expression and privacy in "information and communications technologies" or live up to its "Global" title unless it can expand its membership geographically and service-wise.

One issue facing the GNI's future growth is that the people developing the GNI worked together for years. These people persevered throughout a difficult process, and were able to reach compromise because they were on the verge of achieving their goal of starting the GNI. Newcomers will not have been through this process, but will need to feel equally important. How can the trust built between the initial stakeholders scale to newcomers?

Another issue is that no telecommunications companies are enrolled in the GNI, although several participated in the development of the GNI and dropped out before it launched. Nolan cited concerns about the structure of the GNI, budget and the potentially onerous accountability process as possible reasons why these telecommunications companies failed to join the GNI upon launch.

Senators Durbin and Coburn sent a [http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=316922 letter] to 26 software companies urging them to sign up for the GNI. In this letter, the senators imply that the GNI will not be able to advance human rights unless more companies enroll. Nolan believes that the GNI can only truly affect governments in a positive manner if its membership increases. The Senators reference the recent use of the internet by Iranian protesters as an example of the expressive power of the internet.

What can incentivise companies to join the GNI or similar initiatives and uphold its principles?

== Metrics/Accountability ==

How can the impact of the GNI be measured? It is easy to make a checklist to ensure that companies are meeting the explicit requirements of GI membership. However, the introduction of external auditors to ensure more substantive compliance is present is a hugely contentious issue. The GNI's governance framework requires that, by 2012, external auditors play a role in evaluating compliance with the GNI's principles. Human rights group form one of the GNI's four constituent groups, and need to feel like they have an actual sense of what companies are doing. Nolan emphasizes that this process must not be a "gotcha" process, but rather a process that is informed by evolution and learning.

The new governance charter has sparked a huge debate about reporting, auditing, who picks the auditors, who pays for the auditors and how much power they should have.

How should this accountability framework function? How can input on the users of participating companies' users be measured?

== Institutional Issues ==

Members of GNI's board are drawn from each of the GNI's four constituencies. In the most current revised governance charter, the board is to be composed of eight representatives from participating companies, four representatives from participating NGOs, two representatives from participating investor organizations, two representatives from participating academic organizations and an independent chair. At least one member from each constituency must be present to reach a quorum.

The charter also mandates that no more than one representative from a single company, NGO, investor or academic institution be on the board at any one time. Additionally, for issues requiring a "supermajority" of the board, 50% of each constituency group's board members must approve. "Supermajority" issues include altering or creating exceptions to the GNI's core documents, determining the compliance of a GNI participant or selecting an executive director.

Are the weightings given to each constituency group appropriate?

In the same charter, board member terms are to be two years in length and renewable for one term only. An exception to this rule is that founding company members shall serve three terms of two years.

What are the optimal board term limits?

== Complaint Mechanism ==

How can a system be designed under which individuals whose human rights are being infringed can report these violations? This system would need to be enormously scalable, accessible, usable and be able to determine the validity of complaints. The accessibility of this system will be especially crucial countries where internet access may be limited, because those will be the most likely countries from which complaints will arrive.

Nolan believes that a good input/complaint process must be a core feature of GNI for its own good governance. How can this system be developed?

== Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool ==

The GNI is attempting to develop a human rights impact assessment tool for use by members and others. This tool would help companies evaluate potential impact of human rights when they are deciding to enter a new market. This tool would be used to inform business decisions by helping to assess risks and opportunities. This tool would be a way to leverage the pool of experts that are associated with the GNI.

One difficult issue is the group of users that the GNI would make the tool available to. Would it be released to members only to incentivize membership? Or would this tool be available to any company will to make use of it with the goal of generally fostering human rights advancements?

How should this tool function?

Experiences in Crowd Sourcing

2010-01-04T04:38:46Z

ReubRodriguez: /* TwitHawk */

== Mechanical Turk ==

=== Daniel Arbix ===

I have signed up to Mechanical Turk as a Brazilian citizen (not all HIT opportunities were available, then). I have tried to explore different tasks to check the diversity the platform offers for workers. There are some amusing tasks to be performed, but most â against the websiteâs Participation Terms â, are boring schemes to distort internet advertisement payments or to gather active e-mails (for spam or worse, I presume). There are also numerous HITs which demand fake reviews of products and websites, or which require âturksâ to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog ownerâs clever analyses. A short summary of my experiences follows.

''1st try'': bad page design, no $
I saw a task as available, was able to follow the instructions and actually perform it on a third party website, but then I realized that the event that would trigger a confirmation number required for my payment had already expired, so of course no payment was made to my account. This was the first contact I had with HITs designed to redirect traffic to earn advertisement revenues (it was described as âa test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00â).

''2nd try'': the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:
* "This HIT is an easy to complete 'sign up' assignment. It shouldn't take you longer than 2 minutes to complete. Many thanks for your time! Simply go to: http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=633&id=93282 Sign up. Then send a print screen of your confirmation email to: mark.studentearnings@gmail.com and write your username and approximate time of sign up in the box below"
The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&ThemeID=21&q14259=AFW&q26274=93282 Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenuesâ¦
It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time â the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load â, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)

''3rd try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Complete free online quote form. MUST BE 18 OR OLDER AND LIVE IN USA TO COMPLETE THIS HIT Visit Site - Enter Name and Email - Takes less than a minute. IMPORTANT: Eligible only to those who have not yet signed up to this offer. Please don't use disposable e-mails as well. Let's keep this site honest. INSTRUCTION: 1) To get started, visit this website: http://www.aislezone.com/mturk-offer02.php 2) Select make, model and enter zip code. Click "get quotes" 3) Complete the form and click on "get free dealer quotes" REQUIRED PROOF: On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : "Sent!..." "
The time-description was fair, and I received payment after two days. I also (stupidly) provided my real Stanford e-mail, with the result of getting my mailbox now filled by car dealers messages. Again, the HIT seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues.

''4th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Data Collection-Google Results Reward: $1.25 per HIT Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result"
This HIT was an honest one, requiring a verification of search results (Google), all related to the same company. Time description was fair, and my $ arrived a day later.

''5th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Rate faces of candidates running for office. Usually takes less than 5 minutes. You can find the survey here: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/207922/faces3 At the end of the survey, you'll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:"
This was a fun, quick HIT. It had a fair time description, and payment was received after a day. I was, however, a terrible subject for the MIT social psychology survey, since most pictures to be rated are of Brazilian politiciansâ¦

=== Jason Harrow ===

It all started out so promisingly. Before I even started, I was excited because "Mechanical Turk" is such a great name. What did it mean? What was mechanical about it? And who or what is the âTurkâ in the transaction? Then, in the back of my mind: isnât that somehow vaguely racist?

Wikipedia would know what a Mechanical Turk is, of course. So I searched for it, and I immediately found my answer. The Mechanical Turk was a chess playing âmachineâ that, âfrom 1770 until its destruction by fire in 1854 . . . was exhibited by various owners as an automaton, though it was explained in the early 1820s as an elaborate hoax.â Something thought to be a form of artificial intelligence later explained to be just a smart guy in a box? How cool is that? Could there be a more perfect name for this service? I made a mental note that if I am ever in the position to pick a name for an Internet company or service, I will find out who chose "Mechanical Turk" and consult him or her. I couldnât have been more excited to get started.

I logged in with my Amazon ID and created my Amazon payment account. Unlike Daniel (above), I am a US citizen; also unlike Daniel, I chose to go first for a little assignment that paid $.02 per HIT. My task was to go to the website of a given educational institution, type in when the spring semester 2010 started, and give the URL of the Academic Calendar page confirming this. I did one successfully and submitted it. It took about 90 seconds. Easiest job of my life. Bring on a few more.

The next one took longer and bore no fruit, though: the little Midwestern barbershop college that was assigned to me didnât display when their spring semester started (side thought: do barbershop colleges even have spring semesters?). That was frustrating; all that effort, and no shiny pennies at the end of the rainbow. And why in the world does this guy â Aaron Smyth, whoever that is â even want to include barbershop colleges in his survey? What could he possibly be doing with that data? I pressed on and did a few more start dates before trying to find something else. It got boring pretty quickly, and I realized that 2 cents wasnât really worth it beyond the initial thrill of it all.

Like Daniel, I then encountered what later became obvious as a scam: someone who said theyâd pay me money for signing up, but the time given was too fast and there was no way to actually verify that I completed the task in the way they said I needed to. This made me angry. How in the world does Amazon â one of my favorite companies on the planet, by the way â let them get away with this? I reported the bastards, but I donât know what happened to that complaint. A few days later, Mechanical Turk still seems littered with these scams. Thatâs disappointing.

I turned to a final HIT, what seemed like just an individual who wanted me to go to his website and post any kind of comment, just for the sake of getting more hits. Seemed a little shady, but I gave it a try and duly posted a comment. Days later, I got the bad news: rejected! I wouldnât be getting the shiny nickel I was promised. Hey Amazon: how is that allowed?

I was once so excited by the great name and the prospect of making easy money, but I'm now deeply disappointed with both the requesters and with Amazon. Why did all the posters seem so scammy? Why aren't there any tasks that seem interesting and worthwhile? And how does Amazon let the requesters get away with this? I felt somehow betrayed by an Internet company that I feel oddly loyal to; it was as if HBO launched a new channel that turned out to be entirely infomercials. Get your act together, Mr. Bezos!

I logged into my account a few days later. The final tally was 8 HITs accepted; 4 submitted; 1 returned; 3 abandoned; 3 approved; 1 rejected; and, in the end, 6 measly American cents earned. I wish that the original chess-playing Mechanical Turk hadnât been destroyed in 1854. That Mechanical Turk might have been a sight to see. This one isnât.

=== Lien Ceulemans ===

After all the Christmas presents I had to buy for my family, I thought that a good way to earn some money (while doing my homework) was to volunteer as a mechanical turk.
A Google search brought me to the Amazon mechanical turk website (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome).

Before starting, I first had to create a payment account and accept the 6 pages long âAmazon Mechanical Turk Participation Agreementâ, thereby exclusively granting my intellectual property rights to the âRequesterâ. Furthermore, this agreement informed me that, as a mechanical turk, I would perform a âwork for hireâ âand would ânot be entitled [â¦] to any vacation pay, sick leave, insurance programs, including group health insurance or retirement benefits; or [â¦] worker's compensation benefits in the event of injury.â

Amazon describes its platform as âa marketplace for work that requires human intelligenceâ There is indeed no sign of a worldwide crisis, as 306,354 âHuman Intelligence Tasksâ or âHITâsâ were available.

I started with an easy, quite boring assignment that would pay me 0.05 dollar for each correct hit: âFind the Website Address for a Restaurant and its Menuâ. Since at that time, my âvalueâ was still rated at 100, I met the qualification requirement. While the website of âMerlo La Trattoriaâ in Chicago is quite easy to find, I ran into difficulties after a few hits. The address of the âBrazil steakâ house was only indicated in Chinese characters in the assignment, so I got completely lost at Google. It was time for another challengeâ¦

For my next HIT, I had to âwrite a short answer about carsâ of 50 to 60 words. Since I do not know anything about cars, this seemed the perfect HIT to test the reliability of the mechanical turk platform. To my best knowledge, I answered the question âHow do I clean a mass air flow sensor on my Mercury?â as follows: âThis is very easy to clean. You just take some water and soap that smells delicious and pour the water into the mass air flow sensor. If it is still not clean enough, repeat this process for a couple of times. You will see that your mass air flow sensor will look brand new again.â Although the HIT explanation mentioned that no qualification was required, after performing the hit, my answer was âsubmitted to conjecture corporation and [would] be approved or rejected shortly.â A few hours later, I received a âQualification Request Rejection Notificationâ email âfor Amazon Mechanical Turk. Despite I failed the test question, I did receive the 0.03 dollar reward for participating in this HIT.

After this, I decided to find a HIT which was more related to my field of knowledge. For different law schools, I needed to find the final fall application deadline for 2010 and the URL of website where I found the information. There were still 53 HITS available with a reward of 0.05 dollar each. Although the HIT information indicated that each HIT would take me around 10 minutes, I managed to complete a single HIT in about 4 minutes. This would thus result in an hourly wage of 0.75 dollar. Taking into account both the operating costs (e.g. electricity, internet, etc.) and the opportunity costs involved, I wonder who - besides âDifficult Problems in Cyberlawâ students - is willing to be a mechanical turk.

Although I got very bored, I tried to perform another HIT that required me to find the date, parties and subject of so-called âtop secret letters of the US war departmentâ. While this sounds as a very exciting and interesting assignment, in reality, trying to analyze unreadable pdfâs was not that fun. I decided to give it a last try, but had a hard time to find any attractive assignment. In the end, I participated in a research of the UNC Charlotte Human Computer Interaction Lab that does research in policy making decisions for social applications. After giving my âInformed Consent for Social Application Decision Makingâ, I had to indicate whether (i) I would or would not accept a certain Facebook application and (ii) share information of my Facebook friends with this application. Although this was not really interesting, this HIT gave me at least a good feeling as I contributed to university research. This was perfect to end my life as a mechanical turk.

Today (i.e. 5 days after submitted more than 20 hits), my Amazon Payment Account indicates that the approval of my submitted HITâs is still pending. This means that so far, I only earned 0.03 dollars for 2 hours of labor.

=== Juan Cheng ===

I signed up to Mechanical Turk to complete a HIT. Before I decided which one to work on, I browsed the available HITs to see what kind of jobs are offered there. Because I wanted to know what is the difference between the HITs and the tasks in physical work environment. I found most of the HITs are trivial, boring and kind of meaningless. One of the HITs even highlighted that âthis job is only for [a person's name]. Anyone else will be rejectedâ. This is so weird. Why the requester just ask the person he designate to finish the job offline?

I finally decided to work on a HIT which asked the worker to find the official website address for a restaurant and its menu. The requester provided the full name, address and telephone number of the restaurant to help target the object. It's pretty easy. I just surfed on Google and found the website address in 2 minutes. As requested, I attached the URL of the website address and that of the menu and submitted the HITs on December 28, 2009. Then I returned to my account to see the status. It showed that the HIT I submitted was pending for approval/rejection by the requester. Up to now, I have not been approved or rejected yet. I've sent a email to the requester to check. Will follow up.

One thing to note is before I selected the HIT above, I accepted several other HITs to try to work on them. I then returned them because they were very boring and time consuming. I supposed Mechanical Turk would not made a record for this. However, they actually did and even recorded the submitted, returned and abandoned rates based on the total HITs I accepted. It makes me feel like I'm an employee of Mechanical Turk and they will probably evaluate my performance based on these rates and other data, e.g. the feedback from the requester.

I guess the requester offered this HIT for at least two purposes. One is to get more people know the restaurant. Actually I really like the style of the website and I would try this restaurant if I happen to be around. The other might be to get more people search it on Google. If there are plenty of search on this term, the name of the restaurant appears as a google suggest.

=== Victoria Baranetsky ===

So fascinating. I âplayedâ on Mechanical Turk for several days doing a variety of hits. I had never participated on Mechanical Turk before but soon became a junkie. Spending an embarrassing amount of time on it. Some tasks kept me entertained longer then others. The ones I like I would repeat over and over. And when I got bored with one I moved onto the next. Here is a short list of a few of the HITs that I participated in.

The first was a psychological study, I assume. The task was to rate the attractiveness of people in 30 photos from 1 (least attractive to 10 (most attractive).

The second was called âBasketball Tracking.â As footage of a basketball game played I was assigned to move a box over the image of the player. (A somewhat simpler version of Duck Hunt).

The third was named âTag Fashion Magazine Covers.â As you clicked through different covers of beauty magazines the task was to categorize the predominant color on the cover (e.g. blue, green or red), the âlookâ (e.g. sexy, glamorous, or charming) and the brand of magazine (e.g. Vogue, Cosmo or Hustler).

The fourth was a photo identifier of cars. A car listing including the model and year was provided and the HIT required that the Turker find a matching photo for that specific car.

After I did these HITs I wanted to do something a little more thought provoking so I took three qualifying exams that were simple multiple choice questions including my place of birth, age and degree of education.

In total there are several things that struck me while âplayingâ with mechanical Turk.

First, the diversity of HITs was fascinating. The HITS were all over the board â going to show the incredible ability for Turk to be a great tool for a plethora of organizations.

However, although the diversity was phenomenal I was a bit hesitant with every HIT because I didnât know the purpose or reason for what I was doing. For example, the psychological study that asked me to rate the beauty of the persons in the photographs was bizarre in asking me for a waiver. The waiver explained that I was not allowed to bring suit for my work in this study and that I had no monetary rights.

Not only was the purpose concealed but the member asking for the HIT is not revealed. Although there is a name for example âPaul Goldsteinâ is listed as the requester â further information is not available. I think this lack of transparency is troublesome. Anonymity certainly promotes more use of Mechanical Turk but it seems when some tasks could perhaps have malicious purposes, transparency would be good. In addition, transparency of the Turkers also would make their work more veritable.

Lastly, the final thing that troubled me on Mechanical Turk was the addictive quality of the tasks. By placing money into the equation one feels that playing, categorizing and writing reviews - in essence what is wasting time is perhaps a valuable to spend time. The games become frighteningly more appealing and what begins as a 45-minute endeavor turns into several hours of clicking, tagging and reading. I felt like a better at Atlantic City â pulling the proverbial lever at the slot machine over and over again.

=== Andrew Jacobs ===
I also experimented with Amazonâs Mechanical Turk.

My first HIT was to transcribe a 30 second audio clip. From the perspective of a new mturk worker, I was entirely satisfied with the experience. I could preview the audio clip before accepting the HIT, so as not to commit myself to garbled mumbling and subsequently damage my reputation by abandoning the task. The content turned out to be a snippet of Biblical interpretation. I accepted, did my best (bracketing a few words I wasnât sure of, including âMillenialistsâ), and a few days later received two cents in my payments account for approximately three minutes of work.

From a slightly more critical perspective, this HIT got me thinking about economic and noneconomic incentives. As an unpaid intern for a literary magazine a few years ago, I transcribed a two-hour roundtable discussion among five barely distinguishable voices, recorded on a cheap, analog tape recorder. Though the task was awful, I worked on it diligently, mostly because I liked the editors and believed in their cause. If that alleged âMillenialistâ word had popped up, I certainly would have gone to greater lengths to verify it than I did here, even though I risked two whole cents in this case. What if, then, there were a volunteer crowdsourcing tool for this requesterâs particular brand of Christianity? Or, more plausibly, a general volunteer crowdsourcing website that grouped unpaid tasks by the causes that their completion furthered? The results might well be of higher quality than mturkâs, and I imagine those volunteer sites would avoid some thorny labor issues that Amazon faces.

My second HIT, which a few others have mentioned, was easy: I was to find the URLs for the main website and the menu of a given restaurant, at five cents a pop. (If either of these websites proved nonexistent, there was space to say so, and I still got my nickel.) Though it took a couple more days than the first HIT, I was eventually paid $.15 for my three finds.

The mindless, but not grating, simplicity of this HIT made me think a bit about how mturkâs economic incentives may be better utilized without increasing their value. In order to shift my earning to an Amazon Gift Certificate, for example, I have to follow a handful of steps and type in exactly how much I want to transfer. Why canât I have my account be directly and continuously tied to a Gift Certificate? And why not have a âHIT itâ button along with âBuyâ in Amazonâs retail stores? If there wasnât enough money in my Payments account, the button would take me to my mturk account so I could earn some more. One of the most valuable things I can get for less than a dollar, in my mind, is an Amazon MP3. If Iâm working for tiny sums anyway, I might be more motivated if my tiny carrot were a more direct embodiment of value.

Now that I have a Mechanical Turk account, will I use it again? Maybe. Like Victoria, I had some fun completing the âTag Fashion Coversâ HITs (though at first the âsubmitâ button in their dialog box was malfunctioning). Perhaps even as much fun as, say, those last twenty minutes of bopping around on the Internet before bed. I smell a New Yearâs resolution. . .

=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===

I too spent some time on Mechanical Turk. I'd used it a few times before, which was enough to teach me to stay far away from $.02 tasks. They're boring, they often just don't work, and they pay $.02. But I actually enjoy some of the higher-paid tasks, especially writing articles. So I sorted the available HITs by wage and started with the one that paid the most, $4.17/hour. That seemed like an unbelievably high wage, particularly since it only asked me to look at a website and review it. After I'd glanced at the website, though, I realized that it was impossible to submit the HIT. Clever spam: the highest-priced task gets lots of viewers, who click through to the ad-loaded website, whose operators are presumably paid per view (or just hope some Turkers will click through). The operators didnât any up paying for any HITs, so voilaâfree traffic.

Moderately disgruntled, I found a $1.70 HIT to write a 300 word piece about green weddings. It took maybe 5 minutes to complete, and I had fun--law students don't get to do much free writing, and since my friends are getting married in droves, I have a lot of thoughts about weddings. The payment came through the next day. I also wrote an article about how to make airline travel quicker and easier ($1.00, 300 words), also quickly paid. Then I started on a HIT that asked me to write a 500 word article including the words "sheer bodystocking." I wrote the HIT about something completely unrelated to lingerie (I wrote about sledding in my hometown), added the words "sheer bodystocking" in the middle of a sentence, and submitted. I wish I could say this had been a conscious quality-control experiment, but I just wasnât paying much attention when I started writing. My article been pending several days, and Iâm eager to see whether I get my $1.00.

Like most of you, I assume that these articles are not in fact serving those who want to know how to plan a green wedding or facilitate air travel, but are ending up as word salad on spammy webpages. (Despite that knowledge, I find myself surprisingly invested in writing good and useful articles â irrational?) So I saved my text and did a Google search for it a few days later, and got nothing; Iâll repeat it in a few weeks. As much as I find AMT tasks strangely soothing, like many of you, I don't think they always make the internet a better place.

I also paid a brief visit to the Turker forums, where there's a discussion going on about the perceived increase in spammy HITs, whether reporting does any good, whether companies will find out who reported them and reject that person's HITs, whether Amazon should preemptively screen HITs, and whether class-action lawsuits might do any good. Interestingly, a few requestors were participating in the discussion too, and one experienced Turker appeared to be in conversations with Amazon's management.

Finally (as discussed a little more below), I set up a TwitHawk alert for people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk. I havenât gotten any Turkers yet, but I did get requestors advertising HITs and a couple of articles about the service. One article made a good point--Amazon has long relied on customer rankings and data to create a huge part of the service's value (imagine how lame Amazon would be if only staff could do reviews!), so it was natural they would think to expand into the crowdsourcing space.

== LiveOps ==

=== Sheel Tyle ===

I am in the process of signing up as an inexperienced bilingual (Spanish & English - I'm conversational, not fluent, in Spanish, but let's see how much I'm tested on it) LiveOps call center agent. There are videos on the website from independent agents, testimonials on the sidebar ($15-22/hour), and press releases from various periodicals that try and convince.

There are five steps that I must follow in order to be 'submitted for review':

Validate your email address

Verify your understanding of the general requirements

Provide basic information on your background

Assess your comprehension and computer skill

Audition your voice

Under ''''basic information'''', here are some of the questions:

Have you ever contracted your business with LiveOps in the past?, Do you have prior call center experience?, Are you currently licensed to sell both health and life insurance products?, Are you currently licensed to sell both property and casualty insurance products?, Do you have prior experience in sales?, Do you have prior experience taking calls from Radio offers?, Do you have any experience in outbound telemarketing?, Do You Speak, Read and Write Spanish - FLUENTLY?, Do You Speak, Read and Write French - FLUENTLY?

I said "No" to every one except "Yes" to speaking Spanish.

Then, under ''''comprehension and computer skill'''', I had to answer questions like:

''
Please read this script:"We dont want you to miss out on this great offer, so what I can do for you today is offer you 1 HotBrush for 3 easy payments of $29.99 plus $14.75 to cover processing or you can take advantage of our special offer, the SpeedyHeat model for only $6.67 additional per payment. The SpeedyHeat Model contains a computer chip which lets your HotBrush heat up faster and hold a more even temperature just like the most expensive professional quality hot tools. So, would you like to order the HotBrush or the SpeedyHeat Model?"

In this script, is the customer choosing between two different products or are they deciding whether to add a product (for two products total)?
Deciding whether to add a product
Choosing between two different products''

'' What is the keyboard shortcut to move between windows you already have open on your computer?
Hold down the "Alt" button and press the "Tab" button
Drag the window offscreen
Click the appropriate button in the task bar
Close the program you are currently working in, and open a new one
Minimize the window you are currently working in ''

Finally, the voice test. LiveOps asked me to call in to a 1-800 number and, when prompted, read two passages: one in English and one in Spanish.

Submitted. Once I hear back, I'll update whether I was accepted =)

=== Ramesh Nagarajan ===

I've completed the agent qualification process to become a LiveOps representative. Sheel did a good job of explaining the basics of the qualification process, so I'll share two observations I had about the process.

First, there's a fair amount of legal language LiveOps uses, with the intention of disclaiming any liability or even the existence of much of a relationship between it and its contractors. One must agree to the following: "I understand that LiveOps will investigate all of my information provided during the Agent Qualification process, and that Certification of my home business to contract with LiveOps will be contingent upon successful completion of a criminal and credit background check." They aren't currently accepting Massachusetts residents as LiveOps contractors -- perhaps Massachusetts's laws are too worker-friendly -- so I hope that means I get to avoid the "criminal and credit background check." Also, I didn't have to provide a Social Security Number, which makes me wonder if there is a real background check. Going back to the phrase I agreed to, I found it interesting that LiveOps representatives are setting up "home business[es] to contract" with LiveOps. There seem to be at least two advantages that LiveOps has over traditional telemarketing and call center companies -- first, it could save money on infrastructure by having employees work out of their own homes and use their own computers and phones, and second, it could save money by not having actual employees. I wonder which is more important, and if the second is a necessary part of the company's business strategy.

On a lighter note, the questions for "comprehension and computer skill" were quite entertaining. I was asked if booting a computer meant to turn on the sound, throw it out, turn it on, or add extra drives, and I had to decipher the meaning of a call script. I think there's a good chance I got one of the questions wrong. It asked what a customer paid today for a product that had "an upfront trial payment" of $15, three monthly payments of $40, and a shipping and handling charge of $10. I answered $15, but when I think about it, maybe it should be $25.

== Online mass collaboration project ==

=== Franny Lee ===

While waiting for my little sister to finish teaching her last Grade 9 class of 2009, I fell into conversation at an Ottawa (Canada) Starbucks with Russell Maier, a professional collaborative multi-media artist and a fellow fan of peppermint mochas. Russell is currently cycling around the world to help promote and orchestrate a âplanetary collaborative mosaicâ art/photo project, based upon the ancient cultural concept of a âmandalaâ. The first grand â1Mandalaâ is slated to be unveiled in front of the NYC UN Headquarters in May 2010.

The projectâs theme - global peace and togetherness: âAs a celebration of our Oneness we are building a collaborative planetary mandala. Our mosaic 1Mandala is being built out of pictures of people of all places and cultures smiling peace to the world. These "peace portraits" are being arranged into a Mandala-- an ancient circular and geometric art-form long-used by the world's spiritual traditions for healing, unity and raising consciousnessâ¦ It will be a powerful symbol of humanity united in the intention of peace to each other and the planet. â¨â¨We invite you to share your peace and your portrait with the world.â

Photo contributions are accepted through the project's website at http://www.1mandala.org. From my conversation with Russell, I get the sense that artistic vision currently dominates the project. Issues of communicating his project to a global audience are forefront (in addition to the website, Russellâs blog of his travels http://missive452.blogspot.com/ and the âdaily e-blastsâ with the âpeace portrait of the dayâ, this project participates in Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Digg and StumbleUpon), while intellectual property or privacy concerns have not been addressed other than with a simple website privacy policy and release (see 2-paragraph âPrivacy and Releaseâ at http://www.1mandala.org/en/uploader). Photos are (or will be) screened by a member of his team at some point before the final UN premiere, however, Russell prefers not to interfere with individual contributions unless the photo is deemed absolutely inappropriate. His logistical vision is to ultimately develop a fully automated online photo contribution process. There have been very few (I believe less than 5) instances where a photo has been refused - if I recall correctly, one may have involved something about a turkey.

After creating my peace picture, I began the online contribution process and was required to register my email address, first name, city and country. After completing registration, I received an email with instructions for my photo contribution, which included general tips for âpeace portraitsâ and a hyperlink to the contribution uploader webpage. From there, I completed the web-fillable form by uploading my peace portrait, advising of my city and country, and was given the option of adding a photo caption and including a story about my photo. A box for the privacy policy and release and a box to confirm that this is an âintentional peace portraitâ must be checked off to proceed to the next steps, which are to crop the photo to the project size as per the instructions provided, and finally, to submit the photo. I kept experiencing âInternal Server Errorâ messages while trying to submit my peace portrait, and finally contributed through the alternate method of emailing a copy to peace@1mandala.org.

== TwitHawk ==

=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===

(Formerly TwitterHawk, but Twitter made them change the name.)

The TwitHawk space looked forlorn, so I took a quick look at it. It's pretty clever. You set up a search -- say, people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk within 25 miles of Palo Alto -- and the app updates you when someone tweets on that topic. You also set up some prepared responses ("Iâm studying Amazon Mechanical Turk for a class, how has your experience with it been?") which are automatically sent to anyone who matches your search. You can also change the settings such that you need to confirm before sending your message, or so that you automatically follow anyone you message. It's basically a marketing tool: in the example they give, a coffee shop searches for local people tweeting about a desire for coffee, and then sends them the address of the shop.

The concern in the press coverage is that this will massively spam Twitter users, but the owners have taken some useful steps to prevent this--you have to pay 5 cents per message, you can only send one message to a given user, and you can only send one message every two hours.

I'm impressed with the service, although Iâm still fundamentally stunned that Twitter and Twitter apps have morphed so quickly from a "huh? why would you want to do that?" phenomenon to a "cornerstone of all cool marketing campaigns" phenomenon.

=== Reuben Rodriguez ===

First things first. As mentioned above, Twitterhawk is dead. Long live Twithawk! I think Elisabeth did a pretty good job of describing what Twithawk does so I'll keep my description to the bare minimum: Twithawk is basically a tool that sends preset replies to other Twitter users whose tweets match whatever search results you have set up. Twithawk gives new registrants 10 free auto-replies, so I set up a new Twitter account and gave it a spin.

I decided I would be tweeting as HarryDoyle97 and accordingly constructed a search for any mention of the word "Indians" within 25 miles of the Cleveland area. I created three pre-set responses and set up the search to run once every two hours. Within 10 minutes, Twithawk had sent out my first auto-response (JUST a bit outside) to Indians on Fan Feedr in Cleveland, Ohio. It was all very easy.

Elisabeth discusses the critics' main concern about how Twithawk could be used for mass Twitter spam and she mentions the steps Twithawk has implemented to try and combat this possibility - the five cent per reply cost and the limited frequency with which a response can be sent. There is also subtle encouragement to use the Twitter feed as more than just a robot automatically replying to search results. Each "campaign" that you set up has a meter on your dashboard labeled "TwitterHawk Noise Ratio" with an arrow pointing from green to red. It then rates the ratio between Twithawk responses on your feed vs. "natural" (read: by an actual human being) responses and encourages the user to keep the ration below 25% (1 Twithawk response for every 4 real ones). While this may not deter those with the real intent to spam, at the least it serves as a helpful reminder to the well-meaning, but inattentive marketer to keep their feeds from being mere spam. Finally, the FAQs asks those who feel that Twithawk is being used for spam to report the spammers and notes that Twitter is active in punishing spammers. If Twithawk remains vigilant, the product definitely has potential.