The new manuscript culture

In a 'manuscript' culture, the distinction between written and verbal text is not as sharp as it happens in a culture dependent on printing. It appears we are heading into a new era of manuscript culture as social networked content emerges and comes to dominate, as documents become conversations and conversations become documents. In a manuscript culture, such as the period in the West before the invention of movable type, or in China before printing became universal, manuscripts offered a 'more fluid transfer of information' where the copyist (think of 'retweeting' or sharing information socially), could make changes to the text, purposeful or inadvertent, could leave sections out or add new ones, combine with illustrations (as in illuminated manuscripts, perhaps similar to Storybird).

(References http://goodlifezen.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/the-road-to-nowhere.pdf)

You can't just put content behind a blank wall

I caught a discussion of Newscorp's new plan to get users to pay for online news content. It will be difficult to sell news online because there are so many fragmentary ways to get the news for free. If any scheme for getting online users to pay for news does work, it just has to be easy. No matter what news sources online do, they must make paying for the news easy and transparent like iTunes. As easy as putting a coin in a paper box at the corner bus stop. The pricing is not as important as convenience.

Also, the customer must have a feel for the worth of the content before they buy or they must get a cheap bulk subscription so the content is cheap enough to take the irrelevant, incomplete, incompetent or useless with the relevant, complete, competent and useful content. I hate sites that put up a poorly written summary and a login or subscription screen. It breaks the rhythm of navigation on the web when a link leads to nothing. It stops you cold and punishes the user for following a link. It would be a sad web of balkanized content with links as obstacles. If content is to be shuttered behind closed doors, it must be quick and easy to open those doors with some kind of universal pass like OpenID connected to a micropayment system.

It started me thinking again about how to get online users to pay for content again. You can't just put content behind a blank wall and expect it to work. No one will ever find it, be able to search for it, search engines index it. Its not enough to provide a meta data summary like a bibliographic catalog does. Meta data will never be the answer to our search problems, at least not as long as humans are responsible for providing it. Nearly everyone ignores meta data, fails to include it, or includes incomplete or incorrect meta data. Who is going to keep all this meta data up to date? No, this is unworkable. Meta data must be generated automatically from content and that is subject to a high error rate using current technology.

The solution google books provides gets much closer to a real solution to the problem of hidden content. Instead of trying to describe the content using faulty and hard to keep up meta data, why not grant access to a sample of content? This gets much closer to a successful model for selling content online. When I read a book in Google books I get a random sample of pages around my keywords. Each user received a custom sample of content tailored to their interests and needs. In my experience reading a few pages of a book without restriction, as I would in a bookstore, gives a feel for the content. I am more likely to buy the book if it proved useful repeatedly over several searches. Yes, sometimes I find what I want in the sample pages, but I generally bookmark the source, take down the title in my notes and will cite the source in any work derived from the information gleaned for "free" which is actually a fair exchange I think for citation and a link.

I do not understand the hostility and opposition to Google Boooks. I am willing to pay less but buy more books in electronic form for reference purposes. If I find an interesting book in google books but it is not one I would pay $30 for a hardback I would pay $10 to download to my book reader. If I have to pay $30 for one book, it is going to be the one I value most and need the information most, which I want to keep around for a lifetime, not a casual read or reference work.

There are books I would buy on the reader as convenient portable references. I would buy more ebooks at lower cost to fill out my "search space" of texts on my ebook reader. If a book adds to the information I have available on a subject but only partially or tangentially, I can't afford a $30 hardback, but I can afford three $9 works related to my subject to add to the search space on the reader

An idea I had a long time ago, when I was wondering how to pay for hosting my first website, was the "vanishing page" model. This would work a bit like PBS where content slowly disappears unless readers pay a small fee to keep it available. The individual reader does not pay for each content page, butsimilar to donations to PBS, a small number of readers or viewers pays for free access by others (this actually gives the donor a feeling of superiority, if it were not for me...). Mechanically, the web page would be publicly available to all readers and search engines but a count of page views would be kept. Each time the page is viewed the number of views or days left would be decremented by some amount. A button to make instant micro-payents would be displayed ok the page along with a thermometer displaying how close the page is to being removed from the site. If enough people donate, days (or credits, it could be a ratio of views to donations similar to bitorrent) are added to the life of the page, if not, it is replaced by a summary and a button to start donating again.

What we need are ingenious "social engineering" methods to get people to buy content online, similar to the ones used to manage "soft security" on wikis. We need soft methods, like Google Books, which gives readers a peek into books that might interest them.

Mixing Conversation and Story

I realize now the real problem I have been working on and off for ten years now is 'conversation' versus 'story', but particularly applicable to journalism. In a way, conversation and story are like oil and water, they do not like to mix. Yet, stories are filled with dialog, or conversations, so why is that journalistic stories cannot contain dialog? Well, when it is an interview, they do. So what we need is a network tool that seamlessly integrates conversation (interview, written dialog, transcript) with story (narrative, reportage, essay and analysis). It looks like Google Wave has the closest technology to achieving this flexible confluence of conversation and story, even the potential for our conversations and stories to be both mobile and distributed. If every smart phone adopted Google Wave, and given that it works similar to email, which mobile computing already provides and is a robust and well-known commodity service, it promises quick adoption avoiding any centralized monopoly.

I envision the same tool could be used by a reporter to do an interview (dialog) and for personal self-expression (dialog, like Twitter, only sharing little bits of information, such as links). An interview consists of dialog, little snippets of information associated by place and time. This has the form of Twitter messages, but a chat application is much better for doing an interview than Twitter, so some new mechanism must be created to accommodate flexible use, moving between story and conversation, between longer and shorter length posts, between collaborative and authored posts.

Life, Flickr and the New Panasonic GH1

The HD video version of the Panasonic Micro Four-Thirds camera is coming out, the GH1, and it confirms my idea this camera has potential to facilitate a new visual journalism, citizen journalism, social media journalism, whatever you want to call it, and Panasonic is aware of it (as I would assume they were from the time they started development of the system).

According to Twice.com "fans who bring their Panasonic DMC-G1 cameras to Beck’s live performances will have the opportunity to take photos and videos at the event." Fans can submit photographs for inclusion on Jeff Beck's website.

We may be seeing the beginning, with Flickr, JPG magazine and others who may follow in their footsteps, of a new great era of the "picture magazine" recapitualted on the network (I say network, because it is not just the web or email, anymore but content is becoming social and available throughout the network on all kinds of devices in all kinds of human contexts) through camreas like the G-series and social photo sharing sites.

The process described in the article, whereby fans photographs will be allowed to bubble up through an edited system for display on Facebook or the artist's website is reminiscent of the collaborative rating system on JPG magazine bubbles up content, so it is brought to the attention of editors, who then use their critical understanding of the art, and the state of the art, to decide which images appear in the official magazine. A very similar process to Life or Look magazine, which catered to an audience interested in learning about the world around them visually, before television.

Digital Rights Management and Documentary Films

One of the significant issues that came up over the history of Folkstreams was the concern by small, independent filmmakers that people could download their films freely once they were "streamed" on our website.

We chose to answer that concern by only allowing high resolution, full length films to be streamed and not downloaded. At the time, it was fairly difficult to save video being streamed over one of the major streaming media systems, Real or Microsoft (which we never supported because of its closed, proprietary nature). Our mandate as a non-profit organization is the widest possible dissemination of our catalog of films and to archive and present content in as open a way as possible. This is why we still offer video only through the antiquated method of a standalone media player and not the fancy embedded Flash player popularized by YouTube.

In the beginning, we did not want to frighten off filmmakers from contributing films to our project. I hope that as filmmakers become aware that digital distribution of their films does not threaten them, they will be more open to allowing downloads. We had considered using DRM to enable downloads, but the cost and complexity was prohibitive. It is good to see DRM falling by the wayside. Both Sony and Apple have begun to shake off the yoke of this abomination to common sense, Western culture and civilization.

Sony Joins Other Labels on Amazon MP3 Store

Who Needs HD DVD or Blu-ray?

The reason consumer electronic makers are scrambling to end the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray is simply because watching movies delivered by spinning discs is a rapidly obsolescing technology. The days of the CD and DVD are coming to an end. The emergence of static memory devices that can store the large amounts of data required for audio, video and images spells the end of storage devices that require physically moving parts. The growth of video on demand over the network and in general networked storage means the only reason the HD format discs are hanging on to viability is that it remains expensive and difficult to send the HD quality video over a network or store it on static memory. The window is closing and unless the DVD makers get their act together their technology will be eclipsed and no one will need a "Blu-ray" player to play anything and those DVD can be used for coasters.

Archives may be one of the best customers for storage systems that spin discs to store large amounts of data inexpensively and permanently, but for consumers of media, the hard disk, the flash storage systems and network on demand storage systems will come to predominate more quickly than anyone thinks.

Quick-slow: A way to give meaning to media?

I develop the platform for the folkstreams.net website, which is a non-profit archive for rare folklore documentary films. We transfer the films to video and then stream them to the web so they are not lost, molding in some archive never to be seen. Many of our films have not been seen for twenty years or more, one was rescued from a barn. As such, we are strong advocates of open access to archives (and I am happy to learn many other institutions in the folklore world also understand how important access is to a sustainable archive and are using the web in wonderful ways).

To the point. It has always been important for our films to be presented in context. I have always believed that media without context is meaningless, whether that is a family photograph or a documentary film. A photographic image is merely an interesting composition without the information necessary to understand it, to interpret it. All images must be read...oddly enough, since they are the seeming opposite of text, which everyone acknowledges must be read. We teach literacy, but we don't teach the equivalent for images. (What would that be imagacy, photoacy, videocy? That last one sounds too much like idiocy to be comfortable.). A photographic image may affect us as a work of art, or it may present an attractive composition, but beyond that it requires context. The same is true for moving pictures. This is why each film on our website is nestled in a set of contextual materials. I sometimes doubt that many people read them, or read the transcript, but they are there to give meaning to the films, to place them in context so that people may better understand the subjects and ideas presented in the film.

I've wanted for some to build a small content management system where

* Media is on an equal footing with text, but also where media is the centerpiece.
* Media is as easy to work with and place in context as working with text in a wiki.

There is a form, a mashup you might call it, between a Blog and a Wiki, called a Bliki. I had not paid too much attention to this development until I read on one of the advocate's websites that the idea of a Bliki involved a "quick-slow" process. The blog enables a user to quickly write a blog entry, something quick, potentially ephemeral and tied to time; At that moment or any time later, the user may also create a wiki page connected to the blog entry, for slower moving, more thoughtful and persistent content.

I think this would apply perfectly to such a media application, which would be useful in personal publishing and could help small archives (local history and genealogy societies, libraries and archives) manage and create access to their image collections. As volunteers scan images, they could upload them with descriptions as blog entries, then they or others could provide context through wiki pages associated with the image meta data in the blog entries. It would be upload, give a title and description, later come back, drop a wikiname in the description and then create a page. It could encourage local people to contribute memories to photographs, for example.

Today, I actually came across the first example in the wild of someone doing this, someone using the Bliki "quick-slow" philosophy to give meaning to images. "I added Wikipedia links to my Flickr photos..." (http://instones.org/archives/61 2007) This is exactly the kind of behavior I would like a web application to enable and encourage, which would facilitate quick image upload and meta data, but would also enable and encourage placing media in context, as well as supporting tagging for folksonomy. It's more a philosophy than a technology.