Vores helt egen Andreas Johannsen var inviteret som “ekspert i sociale medier” til DR1’s Aftenshowet i går i anledning af YouTube’s 5 års fødselsdag, hvor han fik lejlighed til at fortælle om, hvordan YouTube med sin demokratisering af video på nettet har givet mulighed for nye samtaler og personlige relationer, som ikke har været mulige før:

Der uploades flere hundrede tusinder nye videoer til YouTube hver dag — i den tid det tager dig at læse dette uploades omkring 24 timers video. Og YouTube har dermed lagt kimen til, at video er blevet en kommunikationsform for alle. I indslaget spår Andreas, at online video som YouTube i stadig højere grad kommer til at erstatte det gammeldags TV. Ikke mindst fordi online video gør det muligt at bruge video som svar i en fortsat samtale, som parodier eller genfortolkninger, eller som et sideløbende kommentarspor til større begivenheder.

Efterhånden som flere og flere netbrugere bruger video som aktivt kommunikationsredskab, bliver det nødvendigt, at virksomheder og organisationer også lærer at bruge video til at kommunikere og være i øjenhøjde med sine stakeholders. Et godt eksempel på et firma, der gør dette, er danske Aarstiderne med deres Madbio. Hvis du vil vide mere om, hvordan din organisation kan bruge video i jeres formidling, så kontakt Andreas.

I torsdags blev vinderne af IT- og Telestyrelsens konkurrence om at sætte Offentlige Data I Spil annonceret. Konkurrencen gik ud på at vise, hvordan offentlige datasæt kan gøres tilgængelige som råstof for innovation og udvikling af nyttige digitale tjenester, hvilket jeg har skrevet om tidligere her på bloggen.

Vor egen Thomas Madsen-Mygdal var blandt konkurrencens dommerne, der udvalgte de tre vinderprojekter, der hver især blev belønnet med 100.000 kr, som kan bruges til at købe data fri, hjælp til udvikling af applikationer eller lignende.

Umiddelbart mest lovende er Michael Friis‘ projekt om en “Politisk Data API” – et system, som indsamler politiske data fra samtlige 98 kommuner, og giver bedre overblik over, lokalpolitiske forhold, som f.eks. hvad partierne stemmer for og imod i de enkelte kommuner. Dette projekt vil være en videreudvikling Friis’ eksisterende site Folkets Ting, der allerede giver overblik over politisk data fra Folketinget. Dette giver nye muligheder for borgerne til at organisere og berige offentlige høringsdata og dermed skabe mere bevågenhed og transparens omkring de politiske processer.

[Billede fra The Economist's fine artikel om ny brug af offentlige data på nettet]

Men samtidig viser vinderprojekterne også, hvor forskellige interesser og behov, der sætter innovative tiltag i gang – såsom behovet for data om placeringen af offentlige toiletter. IT- og Telestyrelsen har allerede en samling med over 800 offentlige datakilder, hvoraf kun en lille del er tilgængelig i et maskinlæsbart format. Det bliver en stadig udfordring for det offentlige at vurdere og prioritere, hvilke offentlige data, der rummer innovationspotentiale og værdi, der gør det værd at gøre dem tilgængelige på nettet.

For øvrigt: Hjemmesiden Tal til masserne! har en række gode eksempler på, hvordan store mængder data kan visualiseres på fantasifulde måder, der giver en ny dimension til at sætte data i spil…

I denne måned udgav højhastighedskomiteen deres rapport om “Danmark som højhastighedssamfund”.

Rapporten fremhæver naturligt nok IT og bredbånd som stadigt vigtigere dele af fundamentet for Danmarks fremtidige vækst og udvikling, og opstiller en lang række forslag til, hvordan det offentlige kan understøtte dette fremadrettet.

Rapportens mest interessante forslag var en række en forslag til, hvordan den offentlige sektor kan blive en platform for innovation. Dette sker ved, at den offentlige sektor åbner og udstiller data, grænseflader og infrastruktur på en sådan måde, at den private sektor kan tilgå disse på egen hånd og bruge dem til at udvikle og udbyde tjenester og løsninger, som borgerne kan benytte.

Dette kan f.eks. udmønte sig i en side som Find Vej, der kombinerer frit-tilgængelig kort-data fra Google Maps med offentlig data fra bl.a. Fødevarestyrelsens smiley-ordning og den kollektive traffiks stoppesteder i et såkaldt mash-up.

Ved at gøre data tilgængelig på denne måde kan man skabe grundlag for “permissionless innovation”, hvor virksomhederne ikke først skal lokke data ud af det offentlige for at kunne lave en løsning, men i stedet kan gå i gang i gang med at eksperimentere uden at spørge om lov først.

Denne idé kommer – ligesom så meget andet på nettet – fra USA, hvor denne brug af offentlige data kaldes for Government 2.0 – eller bare “Gov 2.0″. Denne idé er opstået i mødet mellem 3 tendenser:

• Åbne fleksible teknologier (open source, åbne standarder og maskinlæsbare strukturerede data) udgør
fleksible byggeklodser, som kan bruges i sådanne mash-ups.
• Web 2.0 er samlebetegnelsen for sociale nettjenester som Facebook eller Youtube, hvor det er brugernes kreativitet, deling og sociale interaktioner, der udgår indholdet, mens leverandøren stiller platformen til rådighed.
• Brugerindflydelse og gennemsigtighed har altid været en grundpille i demokratiet i form af borgerhøringer, rigsrevision og folkeoplysning. Internettet tilbyder helt nye virkemidler til at skabe denne offentlige transparens borgere, virksomheder og organisationer.

I Socialsquare har vi længe arbejdet med Gov 2.0-tendensen i Danmark — bl.a. har vi hjulpet adskillige danske kommuner med at skabe borgerinddragelse på nettet. Vi ser stort potentiale i denne form for innovation, og glæder os til at se resultaterne af IT- og Telestyrelsens konkurrence om at få sat Offentlige Data i Spil, der offentliggøres d. 4. februar.

Måske ender det ligefrem med, at vi får en offentlig data-portal som de har det i både Storbritannien, Australien og USA?

Socialsquare HQ is remarkably quiet these days as summertime is here. We already had a bit of summer send-off with Reboot, which we co-sponsored again this year.

Reboot is an un-conference for the internet in-crowd – the “practical visionaries” who come together and share their grand ideas of the future. This year, we decided to sum up some of those grand ideas on a series of stickers, which were included as part of the very limited Reboot swag. But they did get a fair bit of attention. David Weinberger put them on his laptop, and Bruce Sterling mentioned them in his ending keynote.

So, we thought it was worth presenting and explaining those ideas here:

The internet has enabled everybody with a computer to publish their ideas, music, images, stories to the world. But this has also made it possible to share with the click of a button. Linking (or retweeting) has become a social gesture, a way to recognise and point the way to good, trustworthy, or just plain fun places on the web.

Weird and unexpected things appear when so many people share their ideas and creative impulses with one another. Not only has this resulted in internet memes such as the LOLcats or the Numa-Numa song, it has also made possible such wonders of collaboration as Open Source software and Wikipedia.

The central reason for Wikipedia’s astounding success has been that they dared let go, enabling everyone to contribute – for good or for worse. As Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, puts it: “If you prevent people from doing bad things, you prevent them from doing good things, and it eliminates opportunities for trust.”

Whenever somebody finds an error in Wikipedia, and bothers to complain about it to any nearby wikipedians, the answer is always the same: So fix it! – Everything is open for anybody to improve at any time. If you’ve found a problem, and you want it fixed, there’s nobody better suited to do so than yourself. As Chris Messina, a prominent blogger states: “This can all be made better. Ready? Begin.”

That is the way of the internet: Nothing is ever finished. Everything is developed iteratively, gradually improved as need be. But when web services are being developed constantly, stuff tend to break. This means that lots of stuff are continually broken and fixed on the Internet.

The whole internet works in a sort of acceptable error state. Generally, everything works well enough to get things done, but there are a lot of things that could work better, but it would be almost impossible to change or fix completely from one day to another. Google works this way: If you can make something that is good enough for people to use every day, it is perfect. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve it.

The internet allows everybody to publish, share, discuss, contribute and improve what everybody else makes available online. This has extensive consequences for organisations used to tightly controlling communication, recruiting, marketing and collaboration. Now, consumers, users and employees can talk to one another as well as directly to the organisations providing the services and products.

Socialsquare was founded on the idea that markets are conversations, and that the internet is the biggest marketplace of all. An immense social square that connects everybody to everybody else. We continually work with the internet and the ideas that drive it, helping organisations understand and use this new social square to support their goals.

When we sum up what we do we say that we help organisations make participation happen. Participating is the standard way of operating on the internet. No matter whether you are reading, watching, rating, commenting, linking, posting, editing, collaborating or developing, you are participating in the big conversation online. And if you aren’t participating, don’t expect other people to do so on your behalf.

Socialsquare uses the ideas of the internet to help organisations support participation both internally across organisational silos as well as externally, engaging stakeholders to involve themselves in the organisation. It is in this increasing overlap between external and internal that participation can create value – through stakeholder trust and loyalty, user contributions and innovation, employee collaboration and knowledge sharing, and much, much more.

So if you want your own Socialsquare stickers or have suggestions for other sticker-worthy ideas, let us know in the comments or on Twitter @socialsquare !

The Danish Twittersphere has been ignited in massive discussion using the tag #TV2wikigate in the past few days following the airing of a short segment on Wikipedia on the Danish mainstream news channel TV2.

The segment, which was aired as part of daily morning show “Go’ Morgen Danmark”, showed the two hosts discussing the possibilities for abusing Wikipedia and posting incorrect information, citing the case of an Irish student who’d managed to get false information into several newspaper as an experiment.

The hosts then checked out their own Wikipedia entries, which, they joked, were full of blatant falsehoods – such as wrong birthdates and personal information. Even though they hinted that members of their staff had made these edits, they still used it as an example of how untrustworthy Wikipedia can be.

This has enraged Danish wikipedians, bloggers, and other proponents of participatory culture. They point to the history of edits made to the wiki pages, which the hosts claimed contained falsehoods. They clearly show that only changes were a changed birthdate – a change which was reverted within 4 minutes. All the other false information, which the hosts mentioned had never even been entered into Wikipedia.

Twitter is all abuzz, and “hashmob” has formed under the Twitter hashtag #tv2wikigate, with new tweets adding to the conversation every minute. At the time of writing, the tweets contain links to a recent press release, wherein the TV2 editor responsible states that he considers the segment a satiric warning against relying on Wikipedia articles as undisputed facts.

But a lot of tweeters argue that a majority of the 800,000 viewers who watched that segment didn’t get the joke and understood that you won’t find such jokes on your average Wikipedia entry. They see it as a smearing of the fundamentals of participatory culture online.

Here at Socialsquare, we’ve spent some time considering what this case can teach organisations about Wikipedia and engaging with online participatory culture in general. We’ve found at least four points of interest:

1. Don’t mess with communities
The case here is that Wikipedia might look like a website with a lot of articles – but it is also a group of dedicated and loyal and hard working people. And on the internet – in the bloggosfere – and among the Twitterati Wikipedians are know as nice and dedicated and serious people – so if you make fun of them or try to destroy their work you will face a large group of fans amongst internet inhabitants who will blog, tweet, e-mail and write about it endlessly

2. Get the facts straight
Even though it is the internet it is not Klondyke. There are facts and knowledge to be found – call someone who knows about Wikipedia and get their take BEFORE you just offer your uninformed opinion on an issue. Wikipedia IS moderated and edited – it is just done by people who are not paid – they should get a medal – not be laughed at.

3. If you don’t know – don’t pretend to know
If you don’t know how the review procedure on Wikipedia works (such as the fact that you don’t have to be a member to revert changes), don’t claim to know. Not only are you exposing your ignorance, but you’re also belittling those who do know and take pride and care in reviewing and verifying the information.

4. Show respect for culture you don’t understand
Entering an online community is like entering a different culture. Pretend you are in a different country: Try to be curious not condemning – you might learn something useful and make new friends. Rushing in with a lot of noise and calling people “librarians” is just as inappropriate as wearing a tubetop at a funeral.

We find that this is a vital issue that deserves a better and more nuanced discussion than what Twitter can offer: Therefore, we invite anyone interested in this issue to join us for an informal discussion on how do organisations engage with existing online communities such as Wikipedia? What role does traditional mass media play in relation to online participatory culture? In short: What lessons can be learned from the #TV2wikigate case?

The meeting is free and will take place on at 16.00 on Tuesday May 19th at Socialsquare’s offices on Vesterbrogade 67, 1 (entrance through Westend).

Since we have a limited number of seats we urge you to sign up below. Preference will be given to organisations and businesses interested in understanding and relating to online communities and Wikipedia (TV2 hosts Anders Breinholt and Cecilie Frøkjær are most welcome to join us).

Last Thursday, Socialsquare hosted yet another after work meeting, this time on Microblogging, and Twitter in particular. It was a very well-attended meeting, with lots of good discussion on how microblogging can be used within the organisation. So a big thank you to everybody who attended! :-)

Our presentation gave some basic statistics on Twitter, but focused on a number of microblogging cases, where such tools have been used – either as a means to connect more directly and visibly with external stakeholders, or as a means to support fluid communication, knowledge-sharing, and relation-building between internal stakeholders:

Among the cases, which resonated the most with the participants, were:

Ford – a good example of one individual representing and humanising a whole company online. Through Scott Monty, Ford’s “head of social media”, stakeholders can voice their opinions directly to Ford, and get immediate and honest answers.

Folketwinget – one key problem with microblogging is that it is designed for one person only. You can’t really communicate a multitude of voices through one feed. Socialsquare’s experiment with Folketwinget, which gathers all tweets to Danish parliament politicians, shows how it is possible to create a channel that combines multiple microblogging feeds to show the plurality of voices and ideas that are present within any organisation.

Get Satisfaction – a different approach, where customers can ask questions and offer feedback regarding products and services related to any company. The twist being that if that company isn’t represented on the site, answers will be provided by fellow customers instead. Companies can then claim products and use Get Satisfaction as a channel to provide official support.

Yammer – but microblogging can be just as useful internally in the organisation, if not even more so. Here at Socialsquare, we use Yammer as an internal communications channel where we can post all of the various bits of news that don’t need a reply. This is particularly useful as we are often out of the office, working from home or on the road, and thus can keep up with all of the activities within the organisation. Furthermore, for organisations unused to opening up for participation online, yammer is a great way to experiment and get started with these tools.

Feel free to add your cases, ideas and questions in the comments.

One of the conclusions from our discussions on Facebook in the organisation was that Facebook is just a tool to maintain relations, and that as a tool it may not be ideal for use within organisations. But the way Facebook works may well be giving us a glimpse of how organisations can use such tools in the future:

Where it’s easy to share knowledge across the organisation.
Where it’s easy to find and get in touch with the people with the relevant competences or knowledge. Where it’s easy to maintain a peripheral vision of all of the relevant actions, relations, and exchanges taking place within the organisation.
Where it’s easy to form ad hoc groups and projects and coordinate and collaborate across departments, physical distances and organisational hierarchy.
Where it’s engage stakeholders outside of the organisation to participate in discussions, idea development, or mutual sharing of experiences.

Obviously, the technology is already here. There are just not a lot of organisations, which have adopted it. One company who’ve sought to experiment with unlocking this potential is IBM, which launched its own internal opt-in social network site, named Beehive, in September 2007. Since then, over 50.000 IBM employees (40% of all IBM employees) have begun using the network:

The users’ Beehive identities are connected directly to the corporate directory and organisation chart, so that every action on the site is tied directly to the employee’s corporate identity. This is done to ensure that everything posted to the site is tied to the identity and responsibility of individuals within the organisation.

This means that all users know their (their co-workers, their boss, and their bosses’ boss) and thus know how to act and present themselves. Following this, the developers do not have to monitor the site actively for inappropriate content. Instead, it is up to the users to flag inappropriate content. In the first year, they’ve only had 5 reports.

And what do the IBM employees use Beehive for? Well, first of all, Beehive is a separate site from the intranet, which opens up for new practices among employees. As Joan DiMicco, a researcher with IBM’s Center for Social Software, explains in a brief presentation, Beehive offers employees a separate space, where they can be more playful and show other sides of who they are: “They feel it’s a safer environment for sharing.”

Even though the developers have sought to encourage such a playful atmosphere, it wasn’t until senior managers and vice-presidents began posting photos of their families that other employees began feeling comfortable doing so. Now, the site is generally used to share knowledge and information that co-workers care about, such as photos of team events, opinions on the strategy, technology, and products of IBM, as well as lists of skills and competences within the organisation.

The site is proving especially apt at offering more context around co-workers who collaborate at great distances – this creates new and better ways to build relations across a huge organisation such as IBM.

Beehive is just an experiment, and nowhere near as developed as Facebook, but it is showing new ways to create and maintain relations and knowledge within an organisation. As science fiction author William Gibson put it in a much-quoted sound bite: “The future is already here, it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

Trine-Maria was on TV this morning to tell the Danish TV viewers about Twitter. So for all of you who didn’t get up in time to catch the interview at 6.40 AM, we’ve put the clip online on our brand-spanking new online TV station, courtesy of our good friends at 23. The interview is in Danish, obviously:

”

In the coming months, we’ll be using our new TV station to present cases and stories of what we do.

If you’re curious to know more about Twitter, and how you can use it in relation to your organisation, please join us for an informal talk on April 30th. Details and registration can be found here.

- Is it really possible to write something sensible in 140 characters?

Twitter is a micro-blogging tool that allows users to write short, micro-blog posts of no more than 140 characters. Users follow one another, reading and replying to each others’ posts, thus gaining an short and sweet impression of life among friends and on the web in general – as it happens. There are more than 10 million Americans on Twitter, which is also gaining pace in Denmark.

Some are arguing that Twitter is the new Facebook. Others find Twitter completely useless. And most people are wondering at the explosive growth of the phenomenon. In order to explore the ups and downs, ins and outs of Twitter, Socialsquare will host an open discussion on the possibilities and pitfalls, which Twitter opens for businesses and organisations.

As usual, we open with a short presentation of cases and our experiences with Twitter, which will set the scene for a discussion where you can share your thoughts and experiences with Twitter.

Your hosts: Trine-Maria Kristensen (partner and consultant, Socialsquare), Andreas Lloyd (consultant, Socialsquare) og Andreas Johannsen (partner and consultant, Socialsquare)

The meeting is free and will take place on at 16.00 on Thursday April 30th at Socialsquare’s offices on Vesterbrogade 67, 1 (entrance through Westend). Since we have a limited number of seats we urge you to sign up. Preference will be given to organisations and businesses interested in engaging through Twitter.

We’ll serve light refreshments to stimulate discussion.

Sign up for the event here:

Recently, a (modest) number of Danish politicians have begun using Twitter to communicate directly with the world outside parliament – the only limitation being Twitter’s 140 character limit. As this trend gained pace, a site called Twittertinget.dk appeared, aggregating all Danish politicians’ “tweets” in one website. Plainly put, you see everything “they” tell “us”.

We were inspired by this direct channel between politicians and citizens. The fact that a conversation bypassing mass media and press secretaries (assuming they don’t need a spin doctor to write 140 characters) could happen, is genuinely new.

But then we thought: Wait a minute! Isn’t Twitter all about conversations? Instead of presenting politicians with yet another one-way channel, could we build a forum where all Danes can speak their mind to members of parliament, allowing them to listen and reply directly, whenever they have the time?

Then we built it. We hatched the idea last Thursday, built it over the weekend, added design and copy early this week, ironed out a few kinks, and brought the whole thing online at Folketwinget.dk last night:

Folketwinget basically gathers all tweets that @-replies to any Danish politician or political party on Twitter, as well as any messages tagged with #folketinget, #folketwinget, or #ftwinget. In this way, it is possible to experiment with a rudimentary form of Tweetocracy. Check it out!

(for the more technically inclined among you: We have made the code running Folketwinget.dk available under an open source Apache 2.0 license on Github. Check Steffen’s blog for further details on installation and configuration)