What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 
Jul. 30 2010 — 8:44 am | 8 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments

Best Of: Fake Wikileaks Leaks

By MARK DRAPEAU
Last night I tweeted some fake Wikileaks leaks. Here's a summary:
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak bad advice during a Public Service Announcement.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the truth behind Santa in a special "Children's Edition."
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the end of the infamous "Man from Nantucket" riddle.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak tomorrow's soup du jour.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the Salahi's "off the grid" FourSquare check-ins.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak slowly, drop by drop, on your forehead while you sleep.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak real-time whereabouts of former SNL cast members.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the results of the Nightingale School student body president election.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak after patiently waiting in line during the seventh-inning stretch.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak detailed Gym, Tanning, Laundry regimen of the Jersey Shore cast.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak every Twitter direct message.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak those night vision pictures you took last night.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak BP's oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
 

Posted via email from Mark’s Cheeky Posterous



Be the first to comment »

Jul. 29 2010 — 3:54 pm | 23 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments

Government 2.0, Phase 3: Stable Solutions

By MARK DRAPEAU
I've written before about the three phases of open government, or government 2.0 – Surprises, Experiments, and Solutions. Basically, from about 2007-8, open government had a lot to do with "surprises," being surprised that blogging was useful, or using Twitter was okay. 
 
From about 2009-10, the area moved to a phase of experiments, in which it was okay to experiment with new media and other emerging technologies like cloud and mobile, and see how these might enhance government missions ranging from public affairs to intelligence analysis to cross-agency collaboration.
 
And starting about now and basically 2011-12, I see a phase of solutions. People are finding that (say) Twitter alone, or (say) a Facebook Group alone are not in themselves providing holistic solutions to government challenges.  There may be cybersecurity issues, or reliability issues, or interoperability issues, and so forth.
 
Long term reliable solutions will require a reliable foundation that provides a secure way of doing things but can also interweave new and even unreliable or untested new media or other technologies.  To this end, a new white paper called Gov 2.0: Promoting Inclusive, Open, and Transparent Government through Technology White Paper sponsored by Microsoft has been published by HiSoftware.
 
I wasn't involved in writing this paper, but I did just read it, and it seems to take a more "phase 3: solutions" point of view of government 2.0, one that requires a foundation of something like SharePoint software so that people can be social but also safe.  Feel free to disagree, or debate, but I think it's worth a look as a nice contribution to the open government literature.
 
 

Posted via email from Mark’s Cheeky Posterous



Be the first to comment »

Jul. 25 2010 — 8:15 pm | 34 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Government 2.0: The Newest Reality of New Media

By MARK DRAPEAU

New media has knocked on the doors of the White House and the rest of the U.S. government twice in the last week or so, but it looks like no one is answering (so to speak).
 
First, a partial two minute 45 second video of USDA political appointee Shirley Sherrod giving an NAACP speech was posted by influential blogger (Who some people in the media still claimed not to know? Please. He's like the new Howard Stern.) Andrew Breitbart, which led to a knee-jerk reaction to it, and her subsequent firing. No need to rehash precisely what the video content was. But post-firing, the entire video came out, and as it turns out she was saying precisely the opposite of what the edited video made it seem like she was saying… because it was out of content.
 
Breitbart is blamed.
 
Second, the "whistle-blower" site called WikiLeaks has posted what it claims are tens of thousands of authentic Afghanistan war documents.  White House national security advisor James Jones "strongly condems" this action and complains that the website did not make efforts to contact the government before posting.
 
WikiLeaks is blamed.
 
These examples are not necessarily highly unique, but they are recent and back to back.  What's common between them is that (1) someone published information, (2) everyone affected is surprised, (3) the publisher is blamed.  What's interesting is that (1) is obvious, (2) is outdated, and (3) does no good.
 
I don't want to call him out in case he disagrees with this, but a wise Department of Defense person commonly says that the new media environment is "not a fortress to defend, but rather a field to maneuver within."  I think he is right.  Yet, despite some progress towards "open government" or "government 2.0" and an increased use of and reliance on new forms of media (check out DoD's new Social Media Hub), most leaders seem to not completely grasp its impact on the world around them.
 
The world has changed.  Everyone is a publisher and they do not adhere to journalistic standards and other quaint attitudes and rule sets and guidelines.  I am not making a value judgement here about what either Breitbart nor WikiLeaks do or did; however, people in the government – not to mention every other person in the civilized world – need to come to terms with the fact that they will do it and will not stop doing it.
 
The real question is not how to get back at them, nor how to stop them, nor how to regulate them, nor how to control information better, nor any one of a number of other issues that seem to get debated.  Those issues are largely irrelevant because they involve "defending the fortress" of information.  The issues that are relevant are those that involve "maneuver within the environment" of constantly published digital information. 
 
The true essence of "open government" is not adopting new tools, nor collaborating better, nor even providing better services to citizens.  That's all important.  But the true essence of open government is adopting a workplace culture that accepts the changed environment of media and adapts to it.  
 
Getting a Twitter account, a blog, and a Facebook fan page is not the end of the race. It's the starter's pistol. It's not graduation – it's the first day of class.
 

Posted via email from Mark’s Cheeky Posterous



1 Comment. Add yours »

Jul. 14 2010 — 2:06 pm | 7 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments

Online Priorities: Blog Traffic vs. Community Building

By MARK DRAPEAU
As I get ready to launch a new website, I've been thinking about what my priorities are with it, and how to measure if I'm accomplishing what I want to accomplish.  And so, one issue I've been thinking about is whether measuring things like blog hits or unique visitors or time spent on site is important (regardless of community), or if providing value to a community of people I help to build is the most important (regardless of size).
 
I tend to lean heavily towards the idea of building a meaningful community that I provide value to, and get value out of, online and off.  And while, of course, I'll run some analytics to see how I'm doing (I'd be sad if my posts got like, less than 100 hits or something), I'm not really concerned with pageviews.  What I really want are new community connections, invites to events where my presence could be useful, and emails where people thank me for consistently producing the website.  On some level, sure, 10,000 readers are better than 1000, and 1000 is better than 100.  But don't I want to get them organically rather than through some form of artificial insemination?  I think, yes.
 
Look, if your business model is to build a blog that gets lots of pageviews, and that in turn allows you to sell ads, I think that's fine.  I don't even have a problem with getting those pageviews at any cost.  But I think a lot of people are going about that wrong, tactically.  So, here's my advice for pumping up those pageviews and really building a highly trafficked web property.  Ready?
 
(1) Delete your current blog. It's really not worth the effort.
(2) Start a free blog using Blogger or something.
(3) Search Flickr for photos that are legal to use via Creative Commons.
          (3b) Make sure those photos are of beautiful people.
(4) Add some personalization using free photo editing software.
          (4b) Be creative with lolcat captions ("I POKE U LONG TIEM") or funny mustaches.
(5) Post photos relentlessly.
(6) Get to know everyone doing the same thing and link it all up.
(7) Measure pageviews and sell ads for lubricants and dirty movies.
(8) Count your cash on your brand new yacht.
 
Operating costs = $0 / year
Time spent working = 4 hours / week (Tim Ferriss would be so proud)
Estimated earnings = $1,000,000 / year
 
If you think this is silly, well, maybe it is.  But when it comes down to it, if the thing you care the most about, if the thing you are most competitive about, is eyeballs viewing your page, why spend time interviewing people at events or researching technology trends or giving opinions about sports?  I could beat you out in a tenth of the time with out-of-focus bikini shots that someone else took with a kiddie camera.
 
Oh wait – you want to do something meaningful? That's cool. Then don't worry about the pageviews and uniques and ad rates and all the rest of it.  Worry about great content that builds a community you can activate.  I know people who can declare a meetup and fill a huge restaurant with people on a few day's notice. I know people who can turn a city topsy-turvy with a festival.  Can you activate your community to do useful and interesting things, or just game them into clicking on links?
 
I guess the real question you have to ask yourself is, What business are you in?
 

Posted via email from Mark’s Cheeky Posterous



Be the first to comment »

Jul. 10 2010 — 1:27 pm | 56 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Entrepreneurial Lessons From Investor Michael Burry

By MARK DRAPEAU
Few people saw the gigantic housing/financial crisis coming, but independent investor Michael Burry did – back in 2005.  Terrific author Michael Lewis (Liar's Poker and others) has an excerpt from his new book The Big Short in a recent issue of Vanity Fair, called Betting on the Blind Side (double meaning, gotta read it) which is very interesting in itself.  But I took a few lessons from it that I think are useful to businesspeople, startup founders,a nd technologists. Here are a few of my thoughts.
 
Don't be afraid to be different, or original: Burry grew up different; he lost an eye and had a fake one. He was also later diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. He acted differently, he thought differently. He used that to take an original course in life, and make original, insightful investment decisions, even when his investors didn't necessarily believe in what he was doing.
 
Make a change to something you're passionate about: Burry started his career as a medical doctor, but it bored him. He learned about investing in stocks on the side and got interested in computers. That led to some investing, and also some blogging, and that eventually led to him leaving his Stanford residency to start a hudge fund in his home.
 
Give valuable gifts and you shall receive them: When he was a doctor, he would blog about value investing and trades he was making or thinking about… and bigger fish were reading his blog and making money off his ideas. But when Burry started Scion (his fund), his first investor was his biggest fan – a big fish in New York. That's how he made his first million.
 
Don't stop believing: In 2005, Burry started moving a lot of his investing interest from stocks to credit-default swaps on mortgage-backed securities. When many of his advisors became aware of this, they weren't happy and wanted explanations, and even their money back. Burry defended his idea and told them to hang on until 2007, when he made $100 million personally and $750 million for his investors.
 
Be happy with yourself: After the bubble burst, a lot of things changed in investing and in life. Burry made a big profit, auctioned off the rest of positions to banks, liquidated and then closed up shop to concentrate on his personal life. He ditched his unhappy (enriched) clients, pulled away from the big (unwise) banks, and continues to do is own thing, which presumably pleases him.
 

Posted via email from Mark’s Cheeky Posterous



1 Comment. Add yours »

<See Older Posts

My T/S Activity Feed

 
 

About Me

I'm a biological scientist by training with eclectic interests in politics, government, technology, and pop culture. My writing has appeared in diverse publications: PBS MediaShift, TechPresident, Mashable, Nature, Genetics, Genome Research, Defense and Technology Papers, Defense Horizons, The Washington Times, and The New York Times. Besides writing for True/Slant, conducting public policy research, and working on a book, I'm currently a regular columnist for O’Reilly Radar (social software and society), Federal Computer Week (emerging technology and government) and soon, DC Examiner. Because of all the above, I stare at books and computer screens too much, and at girls too little.

See my profile »
Followers: 44
Contributor Since: January 2009
Location:Washington, DC