User Profile: Amanda Michel

First, there was Wikipedia: the anarchic, anything-goes, Wild-West style of information gathering and dissemination on the crowdsourced frontier. Now, there's Citizendium, where authors are named and editors shape the entries (we might even call it "pro-am"), marrying together open source culture and the culture of academe. It's an encyclopedia written by the crowd, but on very different terms. As with most all things, it starts with a story of conflict -- a story of disagreement between two people. Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) and Larry Sanger (Citizendium) shared a vision of free and accessible information, an ever-growing self-refining encyclopedia of whatever the crowd could imagine. There was a split, or as contributor Michael Ho has written "Citizendium became less of a fork, and more of a knife."

This week Assignment Zero contributors will be investigating this split before publishing on Wired.com a definitive piece on the emergence of Citizendium. Can you volunteer time over this next week to help cover the story? Everyone who participates will be included in Wired's byline. Just visit the Citizendium homepage and 'join the team' (it's a link in the left-hand column under "team members." There' you'll also find an outline of the story and a list of what's been done and needs to get done.

Earlier David posted about the role citizen journalism played in covering the Virginia Tech tragedy. Steve Fox talks about the journalist merits of the now famous cell phone video capturing sounds of gunshots at VT. Editor Vivian Martin wrote on the issue as well. Are there articles specifically covering the role of crowdsourcing that we should link to? Send an email over to editors.assignmentzero AT gmail.com

David Crumm, our new Assignment Zero Religion editor and the blogger behind Spirit Scholars, calls out for people to study open source religion with him, writing," A lot of scholars these days think that what we're calling Open Source Religion really is the culmination of a 500-year cycle of Reformation. The pyramid of religious organization has been turned on its head. Or, is it that simple? Actually, that seems like a pretty easy answer to the complex groundswell of self expression and individual choice in religion around the world." Do you share Crumm's perspective? Would you like to study religious trends with David Crumm for the next month?

Several Assignment Zero team members are contributing to our Citizendium coverage. Macirish applied his eight question test to Citizendium.
RWilliamKing describes what it's been like to contribute to Citizendium. Michael Ho pulled quotes from Sanger's Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge, hoping that the excerpts would spark some new questions for an interview. Ho also pulled together a list of questions he will not be asking Sanger. What are they? Anna Haynes has offered to Sanger's memoir from SlashDot. Are you interested in joining the Citizendium team? A piece on Citizendium will be published on Wired at the end of the month... so here's your first AZ chance at a Wired byline.

We're fortunate we haven't had any trolls yet. What's our policy? We'll ignore 'em until they become disruptive or call people profanities, just like lots of other sites out there.

I sent T.T. Thomas a few questions after David and I posted her 'scoop' to the Assignment Zero blog. Here's what she shared with me.....

Question: How did you get the scoop? Can you give us the story behind the scenes?

Answer: The story came about because of what I was doing while feeling like there was nothing very worthwhile I was going to do for Assignment Zero. True, I had written my "featurette" on Bizarre Hank and friends....but where was the hard news?

I found the AZ site overwhelmingly complex, but thanks to David that's getting better every day. But the thing that was really bothering me was: What, really, is my assignment? I knew, generally, of course, but not specifically. Generally it had to do with crowdsourcing and law enforcement. Big Whoop---big subject. So I did what I always do when I don't know what to do: I read. I research what I read. I read some more.

I read every Los Angeles area law enforcement story, looked at all their sites, tried to get an interview with an LA Times crime reporter who writes a blog called The Homicide Report, sent her a couple emails, and got no response, at least to date. I still like her blog though. LOL. I was about ready to pick up the phone and call Chief Bratten, when I decided to check out the FBI site. And that's when it began to click in for me.

A few days earlier, I had read a news release written a little more than a year ago (March 9, 2006, to be exact) about the FBI's efforts to aid other law enforcement agencies in the detection of online sexual predators. I began to wonder how, a year later, the program was going. I knew the Bureau worked in conjunction with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, but until I picked up the phone to call the FBI, I had no idea how effective the task force efforts are becoming.

I spoke with Lauren Eimiller, a press liaison at the FBI, and talked a bit about crowdsourcing vis a via law enforcement. I asked her if the various citizen groups as well as private citizens had helped, were helping. We talked about the tools that law enforcement is trying to give parents, teachers and other concerned citizens and groups, and somewhere in there, she said, "As a matter of fact, I'm preparing a news release that's going out soon about a citizen tip that led us to a guy from Long Beach, CA, we just picked up in Oregon."

Hmmmm. How soon is soon? I wondered.

She didn't elaborate....even after I said, "Really?" a few times. I thanked her, got off the phone and I did what any reporter does, I started writing. An email. To Laura, my new best friend at the FBI. Here's what I said:

Thank you Laura....for the links and information. Wondering when you expect to publish the news release on the case involving the tip? Any remote chance I could get a general sense of what this will be about before it's published? (Probably not, but I have to ask!)

By the way, here's the link to the project I'm working on. AssignmentZero | An Experiment in Pro-Am Journalism

The part of the project I'm working on is called Crowdsourcing Law Enforcement. Is there any chance I could get you to post something on our blog? Other examples of crowdsourced crime fighting? | AssignmentZero I'm working with a great team (and I've cc'd them on this note back to you), but some words from an absolute expert would help us get the participation coup we unabashedly seek. Just a few words would be most appreciated. Anyway, the invitation has been extended! As you said when we spoke, the FBI's involvement with NCMEC seems to be one of the most successful and tangible examples of where crowdsourcing works quite well, in part because "the crowd" has been given the kinds of easy-to-use tools (tip line, via phone and Internet, and much more) than the same "crowd" would have without law enforcement's close collaboration with a group like NCMEC. Did I get that right?

Thanks for taking my call.

Regards,

T.T. Thomas

She must have decided I got it right, and she could probably hear the unveiled excitement in my voice when we were talking, because I got an email back within a half hour, telling me the basics of the story. I had virtually everything but the perp's name. I poured another cup of coffee. I had another of my one remaining vice in life: a cigarette. I paced a bit. I wrote a note to Robin, and as I opened Word to compose my story, such as it was, another email from Laura....this time I had the name, age, and more: I had two really creepy pictures of this guy.

Question: You've been working with the Assignment Zero crowdsourced crime group for about two weeks now. How is today's story connected with the work you're doing with the group?

Answer: I knew I had something, but when I went to sign on to AZ, I forgot my name. I was that excited! Very cool experience because although I thought I might have a scoop, I was basically just happy that I had a story. I actually had my story done by 2:30 p.m. and posted by 3:16 p.m. KGW.com had a 4:20 p.m. timeline on their story. If I hadn't forgot my name, then my password, then how to edit a posted piece, I'd have had the story done an hour earlier!

But really, even before that, if I hadn't done what felt like all that meaningless reading while I was trying to sort out my place, and my contribution to AZ, and if Robin hadn't written me about 400 emails saying don't leave yet, I would have probably had to cover the fire in the Hollywood Hills, and that's so...last fire season. The connection to my FBI story and the group with whom I am working is a seemingly invisible one, to some degree, filled with a million emails, a palpable sense of excitement, determination and mutual respect. Yes, I could have done it without them, in the strict sense of the word, because I was trained and educated as a print reporter, but the point is: I wouldn't have wanted to. The corollary to that is this: Because of my team, I wanted to make something work, I wanted us to get a story. I didn't care who got it, but I wanted our group to get it. I never dreamed I'd get a scoop, but I knew I had one the minute I starting talking to the FBI.

Question: In your profile you introduce yourself like this: "I have an uncanny ability to smell a rat, a compelling dislike of most group ventures, a curiosity that mandates I reconsider that prejudice from time to time, and an appallingly consistent track record of rigorously defending anyone's right to make an ass of themselves right before exposing the ignorance, the hypocrisy and the blatent stupidity that has earned that person the dubious accolade of self-induced idiot. Beyond that, I have an abiding love of humankind. Heh. No, seriously, I like a little humor with my facts, please." Can you tell us a little more?

Answer: About my profile. It's true, I have a wry sense of humor, and I try to sound cynical, but I'm basically mush with good instincts and a measure of ability to write. I attended school at the University of Washington School of Communications so long ago I don't think there was an Internet. In 1963, I moved to New York and worked on a publication called Physics Today, published by the American Institute of Physics. I didn't know a damn thing about physics, did poorly in all science and math studies, but I was an avid reader of Time magaine. Wouldn't you know, when the Editor of Physics Today asked me if I knew who Neils Bohr was, I did, having just read about him in Time. I had that kind of luck. For about a year I was the Books Editor for the magazine, writing to famous scientists, asking them to review a book, and basically cleaning up their pitiful mastery of the English language.

I moved back to Los Angeles, worked for Fairchild Publications, on two trade publications called, Women's Wear Daily and Home Furnishings Daily. I was writing about blenders in the morning and beautiful babes in the evening. WWD later morphed into the inimitable "W" found on all tastefully appointed coffee tables all over the world.

Later I worked for Billboard Publications, where I was West Coast Editor for Merchandising Weekly, and an infrequent contributor to Billboard Magazine. Once again, blenders in the morning, bongos in the evening. One day, I noticed that all the people coming to pitch their stories about their fabulous electric razors, vacuum cleaners and flooring were called publicists. They always dressed exquisitely, took me to expensive lunches in their Jaguars and generally seemed pleased with themselves and their lives. I wondered: How do I get that job?

Long story short, I began to work in Los Angeles and New York for first, a public relations firm called Campeau, Lippman & Associates (I being one of the associates), and then, when that firm went kaput, I signed on with one of the firm's clients and became Director of Corporate Communications for a company out of Blauvelt, New York called BSR (USA) Ltd. The parent company was BSR UK, and I wrote all the press releases, held the press conferences and held a lot of writer's hands. The company's big claim to fame was the introduction of the first remote controlled turntable, dubbed, ACCUTRAC.

When I hear the phrase, 'you've come a long way, baby,' I certainly know what it means! Turntables....no wonder I had trouble figuring out my IPOD.

Question: Why did you join Assignment Zero? the crowdsourced crime group?

Answer: I've always wanted to write a novel, a mystery, detective, that sort of thing.

I returned to Los Angeles and opened my own public relations firm, which I later sold to a man who had a real estate p.r. firm. I couldn't stand him, and he didn't much like me, so I did what any self-respecting former journalist would do: I quit to write the all-American novel.

Suffice it to say that the book, like my life to that point, was considered 'brilliant but flawed.' My agent (yes I actually had one, a very big one) suggested I rework the book. She might as well have said unweave a tapestry, but leave in the good parts.

My Mother, bless her soul, suggested that perhaps I should get a "real" job. My father, bless his soul, appeared to agree. Well, as I had written an unpublishable book, had gone through all my money, and quite a bit of Daddy's, I at least pretended to take the suggestion seriously.

In-between all this, I wrote freelance articles for in-flight magazines, I wrote a stupid article on home electronics for (I'm ashamed) Playgirl magazine, I actually had a piece in the Los Angeles Sunday Times Home magazine on the latest electronic gadgets, and I wrote for any number of trade publications, in a variety of industrys. It seemed silly to waste all that blender and flooring knowledge.

Eventually, I did get a "real" job, but that's another story. What I will say is that it has enabled me to buy a house, buy a couple computers, and actually spend some time on my writing. I've got two books going right now. One is a historical Romance, and the other is a Mystery. I can't seem to escape genre.

So, to answer your question, this entire Assignment Zero thing was probably just another clever way for me to avoid sitting down to finish the novels. Something about me can't let go of journalism, no matter how many times it seemed to have let go of me. Turns out one really can't unweave a flawed masterpiece because the good parts are not always the best parts of the story.

Question: (note - I asked T.T. if she'd like to ask herself some questions. This is a T.T. question.) Where did you grow up(or something like that).

Answer: I was born in London, raised in Peoria, Illinois, educated by Dominican nuns and Jesuit priests, and have lived in Southern California for about 20 years. I should add that about three days into this AZ thing, my partner was against my participation because I was in a bad mood, my carpal tunnel was raging and I wasn't going to be happy until I figured out how to contribute---and nothing was happening for me in that regard. We reached a compromise of sorts. I pretended not to pay much attention to AZ, I surreptitiously wrote furious emails back and forth to Robin, and early this morning, I suggested my partner go get her hair done. (It's a guaranteed deal, I think.)

I did virtually everything on my story by the time she got back (that weaving stuff takes hours!) and guess who is writing everyone we know about how exciting this AZ thing is? Uh huh. Never underestimate the power of the press. I forgot to mention...one of my very first jobs was so long ago that my title was "Women's Editor." It was for a small weekly paper called The Argus, in Newark, CA, up in the Bay area. The paper was owned by The Hayward Daily Review, and sometimes they'd let me write wedding announcements for the "big" paper. That's where I learned that a Groom handles horses and a Bridegroom handles...uh, gets married.

Anyway, in what I like to think of as an exceptionally fitting irony, my partner grew up in Newark, and her parents read "my" articles long before I ever met her, which was seven years ago. They say the Irish are lucky....I'm Irish because during WWII my Irish mother met my Air Force glider pilot father in London, and....here I am, very, very lucky.

How cool is this? T.T. Thomas - who's also on the crowdsourced crime team - got this scoop today.

Recently I updated the resources section to include links to references sent in by our contributors. I've got another one to add - "The Principles of Citizen Journalism."

Compiled by folks at the Center for Citizen Media (and thanks to Dan Gillmor for passing this along), the guide takes a look at how accuracy, thoroughness, fairness, transparency, independence, and resources are practical concepts. For example, what does it mean to BE accurate, even when you got it wrong the first time? How do you check for accuracy? The Center has put together a slide show discussing how to achieve accuracy in reporting, a guide to correcting mistakes online, and a list of tips and things for journalists to take into consideration as they pursue the story.

I just posted about my induction into journalism and how I have to quell my desire for the story up before I start. Getting down the basics is a better place to start.

I, for one, have a lot of questions about reporting and even more than when I first started working on Assignment Zero. We've all read about journalists and can - at least I can - easily imagine ourselves traipsing around, tracking down potential sources, noting important facts in our notebook, and wrapping up the big story on a late night. It feels intuitive, immediate. None of those actions seem to require doing much more than what we've always done - to observe, piece things together, and tell the story.

That was true until I actually joined one of our Assignment Zero teams. I've got a passion for crime. I love to read about it and, even more, love the idea of being a detective. So, I joined the 'crowdsourced crimefighting team.' Robin, our team leader, introduced me to the group and then asked me what I'd like to research. Whoah. My mind began by with association... crime -> 24 -> CIA = .... what?. And then crowdsourced crime -> Perverted Justice -> something I'm sure someone else is surely already looking at -> I should find another program like Perverted Justice -> "What is the point of looking at another program? What am I trying to figure out here?" And then I realized one of the uniquenesses of journalism. You begin by looking before you've got an answer. I'm used to looking when I want to know something, when I'm following a lead in my own life. This is different.

Not only is it a radical departure from how I usually work, it's also amplified by the nature of our project. We have to look deeply into the pieces and then, once we begin pulling them together, we'll be able to start the story. Once I'm finished with my research piece, there's no guarantee that we - as a group - will be that much closer to piecing together the story. There are many pieces and many people, but one big story. To get there, we have to be individually patient and collectively ruthless in our pursuit. Not an easy call.

What does that process really look like? Well, for starters it means that we all take up a piece and do our best. We take back what we've got to the editor and we discuss what we've learned with them. Maybe we just post the research, maybe we turn it into a writing piece. The editors are talking amongst themselves on their blogs, discussing what we're learning about the paths of crowdsourced journalism, crime, politics, business, you name it. As our collective understanding grows, we begin to refine. We identify topics to look into more. We decide to drop others. What does that look like? It means that we archive parts of the Assignment Desk and build out new sections. It means that we publish research and then move on. It means that we assign some new writing pieces and interviews.

As you can see, the process begins to look more anarchic by the second. Looking back, I'm sure it's not. When we're done, we should be able to explain why we made the decisions we did, but going forward, it's not clear what's coming next. Is that bad? No. We shouldn't want it any other way. Why? Because to do so would be to draw assumptions into our work that we don't want. We don't know the story yet and that is a good thing.

Why do I share this? Well, I admit I'm not one for patience when it comes to wanting answers and I've just realized there is no other way.

I, for one, have a lot of questions about reporting and even more than when I first started working on Assignment Zero. We've all read about journalists and can - at least I can - easily imagine ourselves traipsing around, tracking down potential sources, noting important facts in our notebook, and wrapping up the big story on a late night. It feels intuitive, immediate. None of those actions seem to require doing much more than what we've always done - to observe, piece things together, and tell the story.

That was true until I actually joined one of our Assignment Zero teams. I've got a passion for crime. I love to read about it and, even more, love the idea of being a detective. So, I joined the 'crowdsourced crimefighting team.' Robin, our team leader, introduced me to the group and then asked me what I'd like to research. Whoah. My mind began by with association... crime -> 24 -> CIA = .... what?. And then crowdsourced crime -> Perverted Justice -> something I'm sure someone else is surely already looking at -> I should find another program like Perverted Justice -> "What is the point of looking at another program? What am I trying to figure out here?" And then I realized one of the uniquenesses of journalism. You begin by looking before you've got an answer. I'm used to looking when I want to know something, when I'm following a lead in my own life. This is different.

Not only is it a radical departure from how I usually work, it's also amplified by the nature of our project. We have to look deeply into the pieces and then, once we begin pulling them together, we'll be able to start the story. Once I'm finished with my research piece, there's no guarantee that we - as a group - will be that much closer to piecing together the story. There are many pieces and many people, but one big story. To get there, we have to be individually patient and collectively ruthless in our pursuit. Not an easy call.

What does that process really look like? Well, for starters it means that we all take up a piece and do our best. We take back what we've got to the editor and we discuss what we've learned with them. Maybe we just post the research, maybe we turn it into a writing piece. The editors are talking amongst themselves on their blogs, discussing what we're learning about the paths of crowdsourced journalism, crime, politics, business, you name it. As our collective understanding grows, we begin to refine. We identify topics to look into more. We decide to drop others. What does that look like? It means that we archive parts of the Assignment Desk and build out new sections. It means that we publish research and then move on. It means that we assign some new writing pieces and interviews.

As you can see, the process begins to look more anarchic by the second. Looking back, I'm sure it's not. When we're done, we should be able to explain why we made the decisions we did, but going forward, it's not clear what's coming next. Is that bad? No. We shouldn't want it any other way. Why? Because to do so would be to draw assumptions into our work that we don't want. We don't know the story yet and that is a good thing.

Why do I share this? Well, I admit I'm not one for patience when it comes to wanting answers and I've just realized there is no other way.

Last night I posted that Jay's going to post at Assignment Zero today. He's going to write about the role of editors in a pro-am model.

Do you have questions about this? Thoughts? If so, put them in a comment on this post and I'll get them to Jay. So long as time permits (Jay's working on the post now), Jay will answer them in his post. I also started a thread in the Exchange about this. I'm going to copy and paste comments to both so that we can keep the conversation going no matter where we are.

Jay's also going to be posting here weekly. What else do you want to know from him?

The last email we sent out was, admittedly, a real disaster. Half of our recipients received unformatted emails. Half of them didn't. Those who got the unformatted versions saw a jumble of text; it was impossible to follow what should have been distinct threads in a shapeless body of text. We got lots of angry emails, demanding to know how this happened. The answer? We have none. There was no consistency across email clients. Some gmail users got formatted emails, some didn't. The same goes for Hotmail and Yahoo!. One Assignment Zero contributor emailed me about possible problems, none of which matched up... leaving us both confused and frustrated. (BTW. If you've got an answer, please let me know. amanda.newassignment AT gmail.com).

So, now I'm getting us an account with an email service provider. I'll be checked out for part of the morning so I can get the account up and running. We want to email everyone about the new topics and editors we've gotten on board. That's a lot of information ... to lose.