TheWayoftheWeb

Two things I’m posting as much to have them handy for my own recollection as to share.

1: I often tell my friend and colleague Dave Cushman that I disagree with him, and I also tend to be the plain English version of his slightly more long-winded explanations. But he seems to be putting across his thoughts in better and better ways, and this is a great example.

2. I hadn’t heard of Randy Pausch until after his untimely death, and although his ‘Last Lecture’ got picked up by various media in the U.S., it was only via Twitter and blogs I heard about it. Probably one the most worthwhile, inspirational, and moving ways I’ve ever spent 80 minutes. And possibly the best advert for academia I’ve seen in years.
Do it justice and click on full screen mode…

When colleague and chum David Cushman and I compiled The Rock Stars of Web 2.0 list on Ditto.net is was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way to play with an interesting website from the company for which we both work, and on which  help with some marketing.

We thought it may turn up something interesting, but we really didn’t know what…

Voting is still continuing, but it’s already teaching us a number of things about how people are using the site, how they’re ordering information, and about how the people in question are perceived.

And it’s also starting to become a valuable resource for information. Ditto itself is a social entertainment guide to help find right signal in the increasingly noisy world of entertainment, and it allows you to add relevant videos. Which is just what has happened, started off by David!

So now it starts to be more than a popularity list, and also becomes somewhere to find the best bits of information/entertainment from those on the list. It’ll be interesting to see if it has any bearing on the voting!

This post was inspired by a request by an individual to be removed from the voting on The Rock Stars of Web 2.0 list on Ditto.

We quickly complied and I want to make it absolutely clear that there’s no malice or irritation at someone wishing to be removed. If it had been an article of a blog post which was in the public interest, things would have been different, but the list is intended to be an interesting bit of fun, nothing more. Although I’d always suggest polite responses will get a quicker reaction.

But it raised some interesting questions about online identity, as the reason given for removal was that the profile listing (Image, name and main claim to fame) ‘was not approved’ by the individual in question. It’s lead me to wonder if anyone can really hope to control their online appearances to only those which are officially approved, especially if they have any level of internet ‘fame’.

A quick Google search for the name reveals many thousands of mentions, images, quotes etc. Are we right to assume that all of these have been individually approved? Or are they seen as valid if they are on established sources, blogs, or media sharing sites? Is it the voting mechanism which prompted the request?

And how would I feel about a similar situation? I’d be happy if I was considered a ‘Web 2.0′ celebrity (which I’m blatantly not), but what if I was at the bottom of the list? (Luckily at the moment it’s Jason Calacanis, who never seems particularly fussed about risking negative sentiment online).

And what happens if it was a list which I found distasteful or offensive? Something which was racist or homophobic for example? Would I even know it existed in the first place, if it didn’t pop up in a Google alert, or someone didn’t bring it to my attention somehow?

So:

• How do I reassure myself I can find every instance in which I appear online?
• Do I need to check the context of every appearance?
• Should I expect to give my approval every time I appear somewhere?
• Should I expect to be able to request my removal and have a prompt response?

The first task is tricky. A Google search will pick up a lot of things, but not all of them. There could be some bizarre story or rumour about me, hidden away on a tiny un-indexed website, that could, theoretically, suddenly make the front page of Digg at any time (It’s pretty unlikely though!). If my online identity and network are what I base my career on, one big article, image, or video could have a big effect on the people that know me, and a huge effect on anyone seeing me or my name for the first time.

That’s why I do tend to check the context if I see or hear my name mentioned somewhere. It’s not about checking mentions are always positive, and getting upset if they aren’t (Like famous actors, I never read reviews!). But checking that things haven’t been mis-attributed, taken out of context, or words put in my mouth.

But I definitely don’t expect websites to seek my approval before they publish anything about me, or for them to necessarily remove it if I complain. And a removal request wouldn’t be triggered by a positive or negative response. It’s dependant on whether the mention is truthful, although I would expect a right to reply for a negative response, and they should be asking for my response before publication. It’s good journalistic practice and also good from a legal standpoint.

And anything I do online is done with the knowledge that it could be re-used, re-compiled, or twisted with, or without my knowledge, and that although technology and good working practices should mean I have a chance to respond to any damaging mentions, hopefully I’m now findable enough that anything out of context will be obviously so, by comparison to my blogging, twittering, facebooking etc. There will be rotten apples online as well as offline, and having control of a brand, even a personal one, will have a limited impact at best.

At the end of the day, perhaps the best way to ensure a consistent online identity is to be open, and swamp anything out of character with quality insights into what you and I are really about?

I’m really interested to hear what other people think, although I’d like to stress this is about identity rather than a place to spam online reputation management services…

(Funnily enough I just logged into Flickr to find the above image: Who Am I by stevec77, and found a message asking to use one of my images for an article on lolcats. Having to register to agree to let them publish it, and in the process having to sign up for emails as part of the Ts and Cs is pretty rubbish, but hey, I’m always interested in crowd powered media. And lolcats.)

Rather than repeating myself, I’m linking to the comments I’ve made on the Britannica Blog, responding to a post by Larry Sanger.

The essay itself came out of posts between Nick Carr and Clay Shirky. At which point I appear in the comments. There’s an element of crossed wires and confusion, as there often is in debates, particularly those online.

For those who don’t want the context, my position is thus:

‘Regardless of the merit and quality of individual works, mainstream entertainment has gone from print to radio, to TV, and now to online (PC and mobile). This does not remove the value of lengthy works of literature, but it means it has less debate and therefore impact in the modern world, compared to when it first appeared.

The modern world leads to smaller chucks of information, as everyone has agreed. But I would assert the idea that these chunks should never be seen in isolation. And that the aggregation of information I make available via Twitter, for example, compares to that you would be able to dissect if it was in printed long form. And there is now more dicussion, debate and openness by creators and consumers before, during, and after the publication process.

If Tolstoy was alive today, he wouldn’t attempt to Twitter the entire text of War and Peace. But he’d probably discuss his writing and philosophy on his blog or on Twitter, and highlight important passages etc.’

It’s quite interesting that in a length post on the merits of longer works, the most interesting part is in the comments below…