Wikipedia often omits important drug information: study | Reuters

Wikipedia often omits important drug information: study | Reuters

Here’s an intersting study that confirms what I have long written about regarding Wikipedia.   The article reports on a study of the Wikipedia articles related to 80 drugs.  It finds that, while the information contained in the articles are generally and remarkably accurate, these articles often omit important infomration.  The wisdom of crowds is really good at aggregating the knowledge the crowd does possess, but it is often not as good at identifying what it doesn’t know.

Health Professionals Fear Web Sites That Support Theories on Mind Control – NYTimes.com

Health Professionals Fear Web Sites That Support Theories on Mind Control – NYTimes.com

This recent story really caught my attention.   It’s the perfect example of “the double edged sword” in technology.  Web 2.0 tools are increasinly bringing together patients to help support one another.  Companies such as PatientsLikeMe and Inspire.com are two leading examples.  These communities are powerful because patients are likely to trust people who are sharing the challenges of a similar disease or condition.

This story describes the use of online communities to bring together people who have psychotic and/or paranoid delusions.   The patients do trust one another becuase of their shared condition, but it is serving to reinforce their paranoid delusions.   Patients who used to feel like they were the only one who was constantly being stalked by a crowd of people, now find a community of people who have the same experience.   They turn to the support of other paranoid people, eschewing the treatment and medications made available through their doctor.

Who’d have thought?

Knetwit: Understanding Napster from the other side

Knetwit

I was interviewed by the BC student newspaper for my reaction on a website that I had never heard of before – Knetwit.com.   The site is targeted toward college students, enabling them to share notes from their classes.  If students upload thier notes, they are provided with rewards known as “koin.  I had a surprisingly unfavorable reaction to this site.

Fortunately, since its business model is entirely ad-driven, my suspicion is that it won’t survive for long.  Why didn’t people learn from the dot-com bust that a purely ad-driven model won’t work in the long term?  Google Ad-words is not a business strategy.  Of course, I think the whole premise is a bit silly and college-centric, but that’s what they probably said about Facebook, too.

I don’t think my negative reaction comes from the fact that the information from our class might be available to others.   I am more than happy to give away virtually all of my notes, lectures, and insights to students from the class for free.  I am also happy for our course material to be used beyond the class.  Combined with the fact that our wiki and blogposts are publicly available on the Internet, people can access a remarkable amount of our course information online without taking the course.  I’d even like to start video podcasting my courses in the near future.

I think my discomfort comes from the fact that I am resentful that someone else is trying to profit from my intellectual contribution – notes from my class – that I am choosing to give away for free.  I do think it’s fair use to use any of our course material for your own personal use or in you job (that’s what business schools are here for).   I don’t think its OK for people to take this free content I have given to try and sell to others.  Of course, if I give it away for free, why would there be any buyers?  Maybe that’s why the company won’t survive.

Change.gov

Change.gov

I had a friend that worked heavily with the Obama campaign using their social networking methods.  She indicated the other day that Obama intends to keep his networks in place in an effort to do grass-roots lobbying of congress on particular issues.  We could be in for a truly transformational government if the administration uses these tools (effectively) to create an active democracy that involves more than casting a ballot every 4 years.  Of course, it won’t go as smoothly as any of us would hope – and it certainly won’t create any sort of Utopian vision.

Nevertheless, it seems like Obama is keeping good to his word.  He has launched “change.gov” as a mechanism by which to communicate the details of his transition to power.  It will be interesting to follow what information he communicates through this site and how he uses it to continue to generate enthusiasm for his initiatives.

Interestingly, you can also apply for a job with the administration through the site.  I would love to see the applications he gets through the site.  I went ahead and registered my name to see how it would play out.  Right now, all it does is collect your information with the promise of links to the full application in the future.  I’ll keep you informed about how things go. The cynical side of me says its just a ploy to collect personal information, but I’ll withhold judgment.

Of course, I have absolutely no intention of leaving BC for anything short of a cabinet-level job (and we all know how likely that is), but -hey- I’d help out on a task force or something.  Of course, I was invited to do the same thing for Deval Patrick, which was one of the most painful meetings I have ever sat through.  Let’s just say that government culture doesn’t exactly mesh with a Web 2.0-enabled organization.  It will be interesting to see this push of Web 2.0 tools into governing and whether it will take hold or not.

The reply email is below.

Hello Gerald, 

Thank you for your interest in joining the Obama-Biden Administration.  Within a few days, you will receive an email with a link to the more complete on-line application.  Please be patient, as we are trying to respond promptly to the large number of people who are interested in working in the Administration.

Managing in a Web 2.0 world

I have mentioned on more that one occasion that I think one of the key differences of Web 2.0 tools in business settings is the fact that neither IT nor management need to decide to adopt the tools – the employees can do it without anyone’s permission.   I remember only 10 – 15 years ago or so having a discussion with a CEO friend of mine about whether he should provide Internet and email access for his employees.  He ran a technology company, no less.   Today, many  can’t imagine doing business without constant, mobile Internet access.  Nevertheless, that decision made 10 – 15 years ago means that employees can adopt Web 2.0 tools without managerial permission or knowledge.

One company I recently consulted for was surprised that 2500 of their employees were on a dedicated Facebook network for their workplace.  Work teams can decide on their own to set up wiki for project tasks outside the company firewall.  Any employee can start a blog within minutes.

Unlike previous technologies, the decision regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools in organizations is not whether to adopt the tools, but how should we manage the inevitable adoption.   As managers wrestle with managing in a Web 2.0 world, several tips may be helpful:

1) Establish Web 2.0 policies, even if you don’t formally adopt the tools.  “Just don’t do it” will not likely be an effective policy.  Managers can make it clear what type of information should and should not be shared using these tools.  Also, are certain tools “off limits” from company computers?   These tools can be valuable for helping people perform their work, but common-sense guidelines can and should be set.

2) Make the tools available, even if you don’t mandate their usage.  If employees want to blog, use wikis, or join social networks, it may be a good idea to make sure that you provide the tools they are going to use.  A manager would much rather a work group use a secure, enterprise-grade wiki like Socialtext, than a free and unsecure wiki environment like WetPaint.  If they are going to use the tools, you may want to give them the opportunities to do it right.

3) If you do decide to adopt Web 2.0 more aggressively for your business, make sure you teach the people how to use the tools correctly (and learn how to do so yourself).  Since Web 2.0 tools are so flexible and adaptable, they are more dependent on effective interpersonal processes than previous generations of technology.  Since you can do almost anything with Web 2.0, be sure you are adopting the tools in a way that will meet the business goals you have for them.

So, what have I missed?  What other things should managers know about managing in a Web 2.0 world?

Tech Joy

Tech Joy

While reading Joy’s post I was struck with the following thought:  I wonder if the increased turnout among young people in the election is partially a result of Web 2.0 tools in general.  For my generation (the TV generation), people were accustomed to sitting back and being part of the audience.  For today’s generation, they are accustomed to giving their feedback.  Could this conditioning of offering one’s opinion through Web 2.0 tools have led more young people to be willing to offer their opinions through voting.  Hmm.  I wonder how one could test that hypothesis (academic geekness showing here, ignore that last line).

GDW Blog: Jerry Kane on “Wisdom” � Mercurial Mentions in IT

GDW Blog: Jerry Kane on “Wisdom” � Mercurial Mentions in IT

I think this has been a genuinely interesting conversation around the structure of the class.  The fact that you guys are engaging at this level suggests that you’ve got the hang of this “Wisdom of Crowds/Web 2.0″ stuff.  As an aside, I have been overwhelmingly pleased at the overall level of quality of blog posts.  I admit that I thought it was a bit of a gamble to introduce this requirement, but I think it has really added to the class.

So, I have been thinking about whether and why bonus points might be effective (incidentally, I am not particularly committed to it, it’s just worked in situations in the past).  Here’s why I think they might work.

1) It changes the audience.  With the professor giving the grades, you have an audience of 1 (me) with everyone else overhearing.  My fear is that the blog posts would become very academic, but not very interesting.  So, my hope is that the bonus points also make you think about what your classmates would enjoy.

2) It provides immediate feedback.  When you know what types of blog posts are likely to get rewarded, you are more likely to model on the successful posts.  Since I can’t grade until the end of the semester (and I’m glad I don’t, because my standards would have been way too low), students would have no guidance.

That said, I wonder whether it’s the transparency, not the bonus points, that create the desired effect.  What’s unusual about this educational model is that all the deliverables (save the exams) are public to other students.  Thus, you see what other students are doing and raise your own performance to match.  So, is it the bonus points or the transparency that has resulted in the strong in-class blogosphere?

I also wonder if its something about the blog platform itself.  Last year, I used a common class-wide blog that was interesting, but not nearly as high-quality as what is happening in this class.  Might it be that because you have an independent voice and virtual presence associated with you that you put more time and work into it?

Of course, I didn’t offer bonus points last year either….