User Profile: RWilliamKing

Now that another publication date is nearing, I must ask myself--what were my lessons learned?

- For one, make sure that your interview notes are more clearly detailed and defined.

Unfortunately I didn't have a recording device, so I couldn't pour over my interview after the fact. In the future, I will probably invest in some type of recording device.

- Secondly, don't be vague.

When I created my original write-up, I made too many assumptions about the tone and the facts, which almost caused me to be in absolute horror after seeing the edit. I immediately emailed David about it, and in retrospect if I had made things clearer or provided a basis for the story it may have helped cleared things up a little bit. Additionally, I should have followed a specific format, such as the popular Q&A style that other interviews have conformed to.

Lastly, make sure the facts are correct and consistent. To help understand that process more, I actually volunteered to help fact-check other articles. I have no doubt that I will gain additional insight as a result of my efforts.

Being that this is the first real effort in contributing to a project of this scale, I'd have to say that the initial ad-hoc structure of it kind of threw me for a loop. But as things developed over time, and I saw examples of other submitted works, it gave me a greater chance to understand what the style consensus was for this particular segment.

But you know, this kind of thing is still pretty fresh. From inception to conclusion, there will no doubt be changes and standards that develop over time. I'll take in that which I learned and apply it to all future efforts.

I look forward to the next release.

A work on citizendium has been complete and will run tomorrow on Wired!

I make an early edit to Assignment Zero's entry on Citizendium; http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Assignment_Zero

What was learned?

So far, I can say this:

Originally, it looked like the first article to be produced was going to be on Crowdsourced Law Enforcement. Work was steady, and fruitful, until a few roadblocks were hit, speedbumps and tire spikes resulted in loss of momentum, and the passengers just got out of the bus and left. Mostly.

So the first piece turned out to be based on Citizendium, which is a similarly goaled project. Perhaps it made the best sense that a crowdsourcing news project would report on a.. well... crowdsourced project. Kind of like looking into a strange mirror. We'll see what the piece is like, and what the resulting fallout is.

How did the citizendium piece develop? Was there more interest? Was it easier to produce? Did it have a larger team? Were the people working on it more steadfast and knowledgable?

In some respects I am willing to both take responsibility in applying my previous post to myself in terms of not doing legwork (I think I was susceptible to my own faults), and to say that I think there was a larger steered effort to produce a piece of citizendium. After all, one chased a relatively current event that implemented a concept that was probably originated on-line with it's predecessor and the other is just a concept, that happens all the time.

Is it fact that because something is new it gathers more attention? Is crowdsourced law enforcement boring, or taken for granted?

In some ways, the two have things in common. Citizendium's success relies on minor policing of the community in order to maintain a level of quality, consistency, and accountability. Law enforcement is about policing communities to keep them crime-free; is wiki vandalism a crime or a result of noneducation? If we educate more wiki contributors, will there be less vandalism? If we educate more people, will there be less crime? Does more community self-regulation result in a lower crime rate?

There are parellels to be drawn, for sure.

What will be the next topic for reporting? Politics, Law, Art, Religion? Does it take a catalyst to motivate people to choose a topic to report on? What will be that catalyst? Synthetic or naturally occurring? Accidental or on purpose? Can it be hype-generated?

I'd like to see the editors weigh in on this one. It seems to be a curious point. How much contribution was there when the site was new versus now? If work is produced every two months will more and more users contribute over time? Will there be an explosion of existing user contribution or new user contribution following the article?

Only time will tell.

Seriously!

Even in some of the topics I'm working on, it seems it's a link-fest. It's impossible for me to read through everything that's been posted, and it seems like people are just pulling quotes from wherever without actually interpolating and summarizing the idea from them.

Sure, it's nice to know what people say, or what industry says, but provide something conclusive!

You can't write an article or a story using just quotes. It's meaningless! Like all teachers have said at one point, "Garbage in, garbage out." If there isn't any meat or perspective being relayed here, then what's the goal?

In my idea of what Assignment Zero is; it isn't a link fest. It isn't Blog Wars(you may or may not know what this is, FYI: NSFW, 18+), it's not Engadget, it's not an advanced RSS feeder. This isn't what journalism is. In my view, it's supposed to be something that you provide a context to. If you read 30 quotes by Sanger and Wales, what collectively do they indicate about their thought or character? What can be said about Wales' opinion about CZ? What can be said about Sanger? Is he a realist? Is he over-the-top?

I fault many of my teachers for pushing the idea that you should just memorize things; especially history teachers. But that's what I think we're getting here.

Disclaimer: the opinions and views expressed below are representative solely of the author's and not that of Assignment Zero, Wired Magazine, NewsVine, or of their respective staffs..

I have something to say to Lance Ulanoff, who writes an Op-Ed piece questioning and berating Crowdsourced journalism and Assignment Zero.

But first I'd like to note that Lance writes the post on a site hosted by PC Magazine, a Ziff Davis satellite. In their Terms of Use (http://www.ziffdavis.com/about/terms) it says:

"You hereby grant, transfer and assign to ZDH and its successors, assigns, and licensees (collectively, "Lincensee") a fully-paid, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right and license to publish, distribute, reproduce, transmit, use, translate, display, perform, modify, revise, create derivative works of and archive the Material, in any form or media now known or hereafter developed (including without limitation in print, magnetic or electronic form), on any number of occasions in any form, and to sublicense third parties (including other users of the Service) to do any of the foregoing with further right of sublicense (the "License"), without compensation to you."

(Sections bolded by me).

So, in theory whatever I say in response to Lance's post on PC Magazine could be misconstrued any way they please without my consent. Hmmph.

On to the retort.

I think that to a degree what Lance says is probably true in that despite the large number of users signed up that there are only a fraction of which that are actually contributing. But what Lance doesn't take into account is the fact that despite this ratio of contributors-to-users, I believe Assignment Zero by nature of the experiment itself will provide the opportunity for those who truly wish to contribute and make something of this, shine. Perhaps this process will spur some folks (like myself) to venture into something that has always been an aspiration but not a reality a chance to get their toes wet, and by God perhaps make the decision to become real bona-fide journalists.

It's reasonable to question the quality of the reporting, because after all it's not like we all have degrees in English. Some of us are real journalists, some of us are programmers, some technicians; others are general writers. Not all of us have the true interest in writing, and that's okay, as the site mechanics allow for that. Some just want to research.

But those who pursue good work and make the effort will receive feedback, comments, and potential praise. That makes all the difference in the world, Lance. That is what steers the quality of the content on the site.

But of course, Lance Ulanoff is a professional journalist, who gets to write op-ed pieces for PC Magazine, so it's reasonable that anything which could potentially threaten the throne he sits on should be criticized! After all, it would put him in the poor house! It is my fantasy that when Lance Ulanoff goes to bed at night, he pulls the covers over his head in harrowing fear that crowdsourced journalism will be the death of traditional, professional elitism in that coveted field and perhaps people like Lance would then realize that something good can come out of something new, unexpected, untried, or experimental.

But if it fails, so what? There will be other projects! It was tried, it was put to the test and lessons were learned, and people will move on. What good would it do for David Cohn to just throw up his hands and announce to the world, "I Quit!" just because Assignment Zero didn't work out? I have reasonable expectations that something modified would--like the Phoenix--rise from the ashes of AZ to become Assignment One (as hinted obscurely somewhere).

So my thoughts to you, Mr Ulanoff, is that you shouldn't pass judgement until the final word is in; that is of course unless you wish create "anti-hype" in hopes that you'll be the crowned the man who killed crowdsourced journalism.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed below do not express the opinions or beliefs of Assignment Zero staff, and are not representative of anyone else's opinion except for the author's.

Something occurred to me today while I was reading the posts on the exchange and on the tracker.

We should try to keep in mind that the core of this project is about crowdsourced journalism.

I'm reminded of the concept of wikipedia, that had a fantastic, rich beginning but ultimately could not (currently) be steered into the final shape/product that it was meant to be, in my opinion. It's like a project going sour.

Crowdsourcing, in project AZ's context, should not be about participating in or trying to create a popularity contest; this isn't American Idol. This should not be a place to toss up advertisements, to push an agenda, to create a mold for an idea.

For anyone that hasn't considered the ethical responsibilities that newsmakers have, now would be the time. I believe it's important that we should not let this virtual space become a junkroom clutter that is easily identifiable on hundreds of thousands of websites. It should not be run amok.

I emplore contributors and editors alike to maintain the best journalistic integrity they are capable of in order to keep the spirit of the project in good standing.

Today I learned a very significant lesson. Well, incidentally two.

The first is, never make notes in yellow highlighter. Always have a proper pen or pencil near you at your workstation, or in your pocket, whatever.

The second is, when you're unsure when you'll have an interview, make sure to make the proper precautions when it comes to recording the information that is given to you. As such let me relay my cautionary tale:

I have a regular full-time day job, and so I was quite taken by surprise when the individual I left a message for yesterday called me back at about 2:00ish EST. I was really pre-emptively intent on having a sit down or a tour or something, but as it turns out the best time of day and method for gaining information was over the phone right this instant! (Insert cue of me scrambling desperately to juggle creating a work document and looking for a pen while on the phone)

Although I think I managed to get the gist of everything, and the interview went well, I didn't have any of my prior notes around (I left the printout at home) and it was almost utterly chaotic. I did my best to make brief notations though in very sloppy print as I am not a stenographer. I made sure to pay attention, ask questions, and try to get what the picture is of what is being described to me. The important thing is to engage the person you're talking to--don't just spit the information back at them, paint a similar picture to what they're saying so they know you understand what they're telling you.

In addition, I recommend writing down as much as you can remember right away after the conversation, especially if you talk about a million things. It may be impossible for you to remember them all, but if you make sense of whatever it is that's being described, you might remember more about the process. The last thing you want to do is have to call them back to ask a lot of the same questions.

In any case, I have another contact now that will be able to answer some of the more blanket questions I have that a single entity from a limited position within the organization was not able to answer. If you feel like you're not getting the information that you want, always always ask for another reference. As Andrew Nelson noted to me yesterday, a common (last) question is "who else should I talk to about this?" It is unlikely that all information you need is going to come from one source during an interview.

After a weekend of a total relentless struggle with the condohold and the necessary tasks that entailed, I got in contact with the Fairfax County Police Dapartment's public information office only to receive.... voicemail.

Bummer.

That aside, I want to break down some of the issues I've faced about this process:

Posting issues

I know the AZ team is quite aware of some of the interactivity... difficulties as reported by many users. My only beef is that there are too many sections to report things. "Talk through reporting", "Reporting", then all comments associated. It'd be nice if I could just place something within a story thread and direct it to something I've already written. For example it would help if I didn't have to create a summary of blogs I've written about a subject when I've already written the blogs. Under filed reporting, I'd like to just be able to post a blog through some kind of drop down menu, but that's just my preference.

Communication breakdown

Robin gave me excellent advice, something among the lines of "You'll have to call them three times to let them know you're serious." Which makes me think--why would anyone, as a hoax or a joke, request to interview someone knowledgable in the field? I'm not sure there's some kind of fetish out there for people who get off on wasting other people's time; I'd like proof if there is. Maybe if I said in the email or by phone that I was a high school student writing a report, or a grade school kid's parent I would have gathered more immediate attention. After all, I would think that authoritative organizations would practically leap at the opportunity to influence a young mind. Too bad I don't look the part.

I am no in way condoning or suggesting that people use deceptive techniques to gain access to information, because that would be socially, morally, and professionally irresponsible. Besides, it's also lying and you should be ashamed of yourself. I just wonder why there's some kind of distrust or 'brushing off' of these kinds of requests. It's not like I'm looking to run a smear campaign, or I'm pressing for FOIA requests like 27B Stroke 6. (I kid, I kid!)

Deadlines

One of the first things I learned about writing an essay is that you should never discredit yourself because it disregards the integrity of the piece as well as of the author's. So I won't.

But even journalism is slightly new to me, despite having a fantastic english writing background, which I foolishly ignored in lieu of a computer security program. I think it's fair to say that I've managed to get my feet wet so I'm a little familiar now with the process. Unfortunately this break-in period caused me to slip on a self-imposed deadline, so I'll be the last to report my segment, which should be coming this week.

Having this experience, I can say that with a degree of probability it's likely that I'll take more agressive approach on my next assignment, which has to deal with Wiki-style news reporting (coming soon, I imagine).

All-in-all this was a good teaching experience, and it really allowed me to explore some outlets that I hadn't previously considered. I'm definately excited that I get to be a contributor to something I can enjoy.

In researching this topic, I'm reminded of an event that occurred while I was in high school.

In 1997 I remember hearing that our resident Student Resource Officer (SRO), then-Fairfax County Police Officer Jeffrey R. Hand, had been a suspect in at least 2 bank robberies.

It was a shock to me at the time, because the man had spoken to us as students many times in assembly lectures. He was kind of a figurehead, and I'm sure that being an officer amongst high school students, there were many that either respected him or hated him. But no one really thought of him as a criminal.

I attended the high school at which he worked, and I shared one year with my siblings who had started there three years before me. Throughout the course of seven collective years between us, we never thought that since 1995 the man who would be come to known as the local authority--the one who we could go to in absolute dire emergencies that the school authorities could not handle--had deep down inside brewed a corrupted, shameful man, up to his jugular in credit card debt who turned to the most violent of acts to redeem his financial fortitude.

It took a collective task force of the FBI, Secret Service (who deals with conterfeiting and money identification crimes), and local police to bring down Officer Hand's crime-spree.

Thursday, June 10th, 1997 Officer Hand was arrested while coming into work.

During one robbery on Feburary 26th at a local bank on a major crossroad not too far from where I lived, an untimely J. R. Hand fired two shotgun blasts from a Mossberg 500-A shotgun into the doors of a bank that had closed at 2:03 PM when a teller refused to open the doors, breaking them and storming inside.

Ironically, even though it was quoted by one news source that he demanded money from tellers containing no dye-packs, he was caught because he spent marked-money used as bait by the FBI at a local tire shop; a fifty dollar bill.

While mostly unrelated to the concept of crowd-sourcing, it does remind us that once in a while people get corrupt. With the advent of video technology, and media-sharing sites, I'm starting to believe that it should be our public duty as citizens to do whatever we can to root out the corruption of the authority that we place so much faith in, regardless of their importance.

Dirty Politicians, Corrupt Cops, and those who believe that they are impervious from oversight should know this--one day, if not now, certainly down the road, you will be caught and exposed for who you are. The tools are in their infancy, and people are starting to speak.

Our topic is officially on fire!

I've been slightly confused about the angle of the topic: should our actions be the story, or should we be reporting about actions taken by respective authorities within the field?

Given that this is a crowdsourcing project in itself, it makes sense from both sides. Consider:

We throw up a wanted poster. Should we expect everyone who comes to Assignment Zero to participate in the capture of the shown fugitive? Is it our responsibility to attach ourselves to the duty of citizens participating in law enforcement?

-or-

We throw up a wanted poster, to make an example of the concept. Should we be interviewing all of those involved in the actual listing of the perp? This could range from anonymous tip lines, to law enforcement, to investigations, to lawyers...

Are both scenarios ethically responsible? As citizens, should we attempt to participate in the capture of a felon because it is our public duty here to 1.) write a story about it, and 2.) participate in the capture as proof-of-concept?

What does the experiment expressly define?

These are interesting questions, because they represent a possible debate in every project scope. Given that we are all users within a journalism experiment, it may be hard to understand how much participation is asked of us and our contacts within the various industries. I am in no way a policeman, which means I have no contacts in law enforcement--but because I know my way around the internet quite well am I the individual who's supposed to be emailing all known authorities and people living within X square blocks of the known perp's residence? Should I call the local police department to speak to the detective assigned to the case in order to find out what the status is of the open investigation, and then blog about it?

For some assignments, I speculate that this will be an easier task versus others. Take the Virtual world topic--I could easily subscribe to Second Life, and go in there to find those virtual news staffers that should be interviewed.

While it would be effortless and fun for me, I doubt that Bob Woodward would have the time to play around on the internet.

I think I'm trying to work within too broad of a scope.

Organizationally I think I am trying to merge the ideas of the process behind the pursuit of a criminal through crowdsourcing activites (say, how information comes from the public in different ways to the arrest of conviction of the guilty party(ies)) to a case in which crowdsourcing has been an effective measure.

Additionally, there's also the concept that technological advancements have enabled groups of people to monitor police behavior when involved in law enforcement, essentially modifying the processes followed by both the public and law enforcement when a crime takes place.

But those aren't the only directions to go in.

I'm totally convinced that the aspect of this that I want to tackle must have the absolute encompassing concept of crowdsourcing law enforcement (the methods by which the public is involved [internet video, forums, neighborhood watch, crimesolvers, AMW] ), the processes followed (how the participation in the method crawls from the source to the authority involved), and the types of crimes (ranging from political to criminal) that have been successfully or unsuccessfully solved as a result.

Every moment I spend thinking about this, I feel like I'm tip-toeing the line between the meta and the real. It's almost too easy to get philosophical.