Re: Project PM network summary
Subject: Re: Project PM network summary
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 3/21/10, 01:10
To: Charles Johnson <charles@littlegreenfootballs.com>

Also, put up a T/S piece today setting forth some of the reasoning for Project PM and citing it as a means by which to improve the cause of skepticism. Made it to the front page of reddit already, gotten some e-mails from valuable folks who wish to assist. I'm setting up a sort of auxiliary squad made up of non-bloggers who wish to assist by way of everything from technical expertise to simply spreading the word by way of their social networking contacts; your readers will probably come in handy. Interestingly, I cross-posted the piece on Daily Kos, which is clearly useless - the only person who responded from there was one of your own commenters, who noted that he'd prefer that DK folks not know that he posts at your site. Clearly, you've got a damned quality audience.



On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Great, let me know when you're back in ol' LA town. I'm about to make a move.


On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Johnson <charles@littlegreenfootballs.com> wrote:
Hi Barrett,

I'm visiting family and haven't been able to get to an Internet connection much, but I did receive this. It looks very good - I can't immediately think of anything I'd correct or add.


On Mar 18, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Howdy again-

I had that meeting with the deputy editor of The New York Observer yesterday and he wants me to do a series of articles attacking various incompetent pundits and critics. I also ran Project PM by him and he's very interested; if I can wow him with the first couple of articles, he might be inclined to accept a piece describing the project. At any rate, I'll be able to allude to it in my footer bios, which is good because The Observer reaches quite a few influential people (has one of the wealthiest readerships of any publication, geared towards a lot of Manhattanites). Also doing that new monthly column for The Skeptical Inquirer. First one went up on the website today, second one will lay out the project and explain how skepticism can benefit from the techniques we're using (the software itself is open-source so anyone can use it and of course adopt the procedures we're implementing). Basic software implementation should be ready soon, at which point we're supposed to bring it in to Coates and get down to specifics on how they can assist us and implement the software across the True/Slant network.

When you get a moment, please let me know if you received the network summary document I sent you the other day. Feel free to forward it to anyone you know who might also be interested in getting involved. Not just bloggers, either - I've gotten a couple of lawyers, a reform-minded Democratic political organizer, a high-level employee of TED, and other random folks on board so far; we can incorporate any non-bloggers into a separate sub-group in order to facilitate the network in various ways.

Barrett

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy-

Hope all is well. Here's a description I've written regarding the nature of the network we'll be establishing. A separate section to be added later will describe the manner in which the resulting network can more specifically challenge the dominance of the traditional media in general and the crappy respectable pundits like Friedman and Krauthammer in particular. Would you mind looking this over and letting me know if it's clear or if anything might need tweaking? I'm going to send it out to the folks I've already recruited plus some prospective participants and want it to be in top-top shape. 

Thanks,

Barrett


Project PM Network Summary

The institutions and structures that have developed over the past two decades of accelerating public internet use have had what we reasonably describe as a wholesome effect on information flow. But the information age is a work in progress, and thus there are potential improvements to be made. More importantly, there are improvements that can be made by an initially small number of influential participants working in coordination. The purpose of Project PM is to implement these solutions to the extent that participants are collectively able to do so, as well as to demonstrate the beneficial effects of these solutions to others that they might be spurred to recreate or even build upon them independently of our own efforts. 

The Problems

Project PM is intended to address the following inefficiencies: 

(a) Watering down of contributor quality within participatory networks: Open institutions such as reddit.com tend to peak in terms of the erudition of the content conveyed a few years after coming about, with this being due to the particular dynamics of network growth. By definition, early users are early adapters, who themselves tend to be better-informed and otherwise relatively capable in terms of the value they bring to the network. To even know of such networks early in their existence is to pass a certain sort of test regarding the potential quality of one's contributions; as knowledge of the network expands, this "test" becomes easier, and to the extent that it does, the network is less "protected" from those who did not pass such a test by virtue of the fact that they did not know of the network until knowledge became more common. Obviously, failing to be aware of some particular institution does not come anywhere near precluding one from being intelligent and knowledgable in general and thus of value to the institution, but the influx of valuable participants versus damaging participants appears to decrease after a certain level of notoriety is reached. Again, the decline in the intellectual relevance of content at reddit.com is a good example of this.

(b) Data overflow: The watering down process described above does not only result in one coming across information of relatively low quality, but also in having to contend with more of it. On reddit.com, for instance, a user who scans new submissions will find not only a certain amount of potentially useful information, but also some amount of almost certainly useless information. The watering down of contributor quality also contributes to the extent to which the latter is perpetuated within the network itself insomuch as that lesser contributors are more likely to vote up useless information, thus helping to ensure that the barriers built into the network in order to facilitate the viewing of important rather than unimportant content - in this case, a pre-established threshold of up votes necessary to bring something to the front page - will thereby lose their effectiveness.

(c) Barriers to obtaining raw data: The obvious fact of data overflow - that some data is more useful than other data - is dealt with by means of selecting certain sources of information which one has identified as being a provider of quality output relative to other sources. Bloggers and others who require a steady stream of data in order to operate have certain methods of obtaining that data, and there is of course no reason to believe that any of these methods could not be improved upon to an extent that these improvements would be worth adapting. One has RSS feeds flowing from sources one has selected (and by virtue of having been selected, the sources must have been necessarily known to the blogger in the first place); one has algorithm-based sites like Memorandum.com (which merely shows what bloggers are talking about rather than necessarily providing any insight into what they should be talking about); one has democratic or pseudo-democratic sites such as reddit.com and digg.com; and one has the fundamentally one-way outlets of television and newspapers, the content of which is decided upon by a handful of producers or editors (who themselves are working within an incidental structure that does not appear to be of much value relative to what may now be found among the better portions of the blogosphere). A means of obtaining data that improves upon these and all other methods would be of great utility insomuch as that the quality of data is of course one major limiting factor with regards to the quality of output..

The Solutions

By way of a network designed to take better advantage of the existing informational environment, Project PM can help to remedy the problems described above without significant effort on the part of participants, yet with potentially dramatic results on the efficiency of information flow.

(a) Watering down of contributor quality within participatory networks: Project PM will greatly reduce the accumulation of low-value contributors by way of the method by which contributors are brought it. The network will be established with a handful of contributors who have been selected by virtue of intellectual honesty, proven expertise in certain topics, and journalistic competence in general. Each of these contributors has the option of inviting into the network any number of other bloggers, each of whom will initially be connected only to the contributor who brought him in. Each of these new participants also has the option of bringing others into the network in the same fashion as well as offering a connection to any other participant, as will anyone they bring in, and so on. To the extent that the original participants are of value in terms of their judgement, they may be expected to bring in participants of similarly high value, and so on; meanwhile, as the network expands, participants will be likely to form new direct connections to others whom they have determined to be of particular value relative to other participants, and conversely, to disestablish any direct connections they might have established to those whose output they find to be below par. Of course, none of this precludes the network from eventually encompassing participants of low desirability relative to that of the average participant, but to the extent that such a thing occurs, its effect are largely neutralized by way of the dynamic described below.

(b) Data overflow: Information flows through the Project PM network by way of a single button accessible to each participant. When a participant either writes or receives a blog post or other informational element, the participant may "push" the item, thus sending it to all of those with whom he is directly connected in the network. In such a case as a participant pushes forward items that others may determine to be of little merit, the resulting clutter is only seen by the participant who brought such a low-value blogger into the network in the first place, as well as those whom the low-value blogger has to this point brought in himself along with those who have agreed to connect with him from elsewhere in the network. To the extent that a given participant exercises good judgment in establishing connections, then, he will only receive informational elements of value while also being able to quickly transmit them to contributors who will be able to make best use of such information. Meanwhile, below-average participants will have only very limited means by which to clutter the network, as informational elements become less likely to be pushed forward as they approach above-average participants within the network, who themselves are "buffered" from such things by way of the competent participants with whom they surround themselves by way of their connections and who, by virtue of their competence, are unlikely to push forward low-value information.

(c) Barriers to obtaining raw data: The dynamics described in (a) and (b) collectively provide for a means of information inflow that should theoretically be superior to any other medium currently in existence in terms of overall quality, both by virtue of the network's improved organizational methods as well as the relatively high competence of participating bloggers relative to members of the traditional media outlets as a whole. Accessibility to particularly valuable items of information will be enhanced further by the option to set one's widget in such a way as to display any piece of information from the network, regardless of "proximity," if such information is pushed forward (which is to say, approved of other participants) a certain number of times. This should help to ensure that, as the network expands, particularly valuable information does not become unduly "regionalized." A variant on the widget for use by readers (as opposed to network participants) displaying information that meets similar thresholds of popularity within the network would likewise provide those readers with a source of information above and beyond other existing mediums.