I reproduce here, for your enjoymnet i hope, an article that my colleague Giulio Quaggiotto and I wrote recently for the FreePint KM newsletter about how "web2.0" is affecting the Development / non-profit industry.

======================== 

One interesting aspect - which is sometimes forgotten - behind O'Reilly Media's coining of the term 'Web 2.0' <http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228> is that it stemmed from an analysis of the companies that survived the crash of the dot-com bubble. Not so much of a futuristic vision, then, but rather a reflection on tried and tested business models (as well as technologies) that weathered the storm to produce the likes of Google and Amazon.

What if one were to apply the same type of analysis to the development sector? One could argue that we are currently witnessing a crisis of the traditional aid and international governance models, which could have far-reaching consequences somewhat reminiscent of the dot-com crash. At the same time, the emergence of new approaches (such as microfinance and online campaigning) may herald the beginning of a whole brave new world - indeed, it would seem that the era of the wisdom of crowds and the Long Tail <http://www.thelongtail.com/>, as defined by O'Reilly, has caught on in the non-profit world. Out with Development 1.0, the era of the World Bank, the UN, the IMF (but also the traditional non-governmental organisations (NGOs)), and in with Development 2.0, whose ambassador could perhaps be Grameen Bank, funded by Noble Prize winner Muhammud Yanus, or Gapminder's founder Hans Rosling with his iconoclastic zeal to deconstruct established development myths <http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=hans_rosling>.

Intriguing as the prospect of identifying clear-cut boundaries might be, the reality is that it's probably too early to tell whether we are truly witnessing the emergence of a new development paradigm (see here <http://digbig.com/4sybn> for a similar conclusion). Rather, we are in a fluid, transition phase where traditional NGOs and development institutions are testing the waters of Web 2.0, while, on the more innovative end of the spectrum, new start-ups are emerging whose entire business model is based on Web 2.0 opportunities. Somewhere in the middle are 'hybrid' projects that span the two worlds. For instance, Oxfam's recent campaign to support Ethiopian farmers featured traditional campaigning tools such as faxes, postcards and demonstrations, but also shared pictures via Flickr and a YouTube duel with Starbucks <http://digbig.com/4sybm>.

Take a look at the interactive list <http://www.squidoo.com/org20> of the '59 Smartest Orgs Online', which ranks non-profits based on their 'Web 2.0 smarts' - the extent to which they integrated Web 2.0 in their business model. On any given day, it will feature established organisations such as Greenpeace or Amnesty International, alongside the likes of MobileActive.org ('cell phones for civic engagement') or microloans site Kiva. Indeed, the list is perhaps the best place to test the pulse of 'Development 2.0', together with Change.org's intriguing tag cloud <http://change.org/>.

If it's too early to talk about winners or losers, it's still interesting to apply O'Reilly's model of key Web 2.0 patterns and competencies to the development world. It may highlight emerging trends and identify areas that may be waiting for the birth of a Google equivalent for the development sector.

The Long Tail of development services

O'Reilly invites Web 2.0-savvy companies to 'reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the centre, to the Long Tail and not just the head'. The emblem here is eBay. This concept has interesting applications in the development context. Traditionally, managing micro-donations has proven to be challenging for non-profits, whose back end was not designed to guarantee to, say, a donor in the UK, that their money will go to found a specific project in a given village in Rwanda. 'Adopt a school' type of projects have often incurred very high overheads. In come the likes of Kiva.org, which uses the Web to cut out intermediaries and allow for direct donations to small businesses in the developing world, or GlobalGiving <http://www.globalgiving.com/>, which guarantees that '85-90% of your donation gets to local project leaders within 60 days'. This way, even donors with niche interests can find a way to support the cause that is dear to their heart through the Web. The same desire to cater for niche interests lies behind Change.org, a social networking site that aims to foster 'a fundamental change in the way people engage in social issues' by allowing grassroots activists to network with others who share their interests. It will be interesting to monitor how these new business models will fare and, on the other hand, how traditional NGOs will react to the challenge.

The race for development data

What do Amazon, eBay and MapQuest have in common? They are backed up by the largest specialised database in their respective markets (books, auctions, maps, etc), O'Reilly observes. For this reason, he adds, 'the race is on to own certain classes of core data'. The smartest companies are the ones who let users add value to their data through mashups or other types of interaction (e.g. book reviews on Amazon). Once again, there are intriguing parallels here with what is happening in the development world. Take, for instance, conservation - an area traditionally plagued by the lack of data interoperability. A number of initiatives are emerging, such as IUCN-backed Conservation Commons <http://www.conservationcommons.org/> and UNEP-WCMC's Eco- ishare <http://www.ecoishare.org> that are trying to encourage open access to biodiversity data and build the biggest repositories in their category, to use O'Reilly's language. Others, such as the above mentioned Gapminder and Maplecroft <http://maps.maplecroft.com> are adding value to their sets of development data through visualisation software (Gapminder's so cool that Google had to get a piece of it <http://tools.google.com/gapminder/>). As for mashups, an example of an application with great potential that we've come across recently is a combination of Google Earth with meteorological data <http://www.wepoco.com/maps/observations.php>. Imagine for a moment the weather forecast being delivered to farmers in Ethiopia, specially trained for the purpose, via mobile phones, as in Wepoco's plans. But see also the combination of Google Maps and ethnicity data done by Healthcarethatworks <http://www.healthcarethatworks.org/maps/nyc/> to prove that disenfranchised communities have more difficulty accessing care.

Letting users interact and play around with the data, 'trusting them as co-developers', (O'Reilly) is still a cultural challenge, as Gapminder's Rosling found out, but the obvious next step. One could easily imagine, for example, that WWF's recent partnership with Google, which allows virtual access to conservation projects on the ground <http://digbig.com/4sybk> may be followed by some interactive feature that allows scientists or volunteers on the ground to add or comment on the data. Ditto for the work Amnesty International has done with Google Earth, mapping out human rights abuses around the world (more here: <http://shr.aaas.org/geotech/ge.shtml>).

Getting datasets out of their respective databases is certainly a challenge due to intellectual property issues and data interoperability, but if the various owners of these datasets were willing to do it, the very 2.0 site Swivel would be the ideal place to get some collaboration going. After barely 4 months of activity, the site (still in beta) already offers over 3,000 datasets contributed by over 4,000 members (including OECD) and has all the 2.0 features you can dream off: blog it, digg it, badge it, Google widgetise-it, etc.

Harnessing collective intelligence

The key principle behind the giants of the Web 2.0 era, points out O'Reilly, is that they have embraced the power of the Web to harness collective intelligence. What better example than Wikipedia? NGOs in this respect would seem to have a natural advantage over the private sector, given their traditional reliance on volunteers' passion and creativity. And Development 2.0 is creeping into perhaps unexpected areas of the development sector. It may come as no surprise to learn that the likes of Greenpeace and Oneworld have their own blog. Perhaps not many people, though, may know that the World Bank Group is running three blogs (as well as online discussions) and has recently developed Buzzmonitor, a tool to gauge stakeholder's perceptions through social media. And what about UNICEF's sponsoring of The One Minutes Jr. site <http://www.theoneminutesjr.org/>, the YouTube equivalent that gives a voice to marginalised young people?

Campaigns, as in the case of Oxfam above, are the obvious place to harness Web 2.0 to create connections and galvanise supporters (readers may be interested in an interesting think piece by the author of 'Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age', <http://www.comminit.com/drum_beat_385.html>). Online campaigning is by now a well established advocacy tool in the armament of the smart NGO campaigner. See here <http://nptechbestpractices.pbwiki.com/Advocate> for a list of examples and here <http://www.ewg.org/issues/bottledwater/index.php> for an illustration of how EWG is using volunteer support to build an online database of labels for their water safety project.

But this natural affinity doesn't mean that all opportunities have been explored. Far from it, one can only imagine what would happen if the development sector were able to fully galvanise the 'wisdom of crowds' in support of its goals. One has to love the interactivity of Amnesty's Guantanamo campaign, which allows users to create a virtual alter ego and join an online flotilla to the US base in Cuba <http://amnesty.textdriven.com/guantanamo/home>. But what if you were to take this one step further? What if, as in the case of WWF Russia's strategy game to save the leopard <http://www.download.com/3000-2119-10192470.html>, you create a full- scale simulation of a real conservation challenge, let users compete to come up with their best solution and then use it in the real world? Likewise, one likes to think that it is it just a matter of time before an NGO (or development institution) will use a tool like Second Life or equivalent to interact with funds recipients to jointly create a virtual version of an ideal project scenario before funding it.

Joi Ito, a prominent venture capitalist, has written an interesting paper entitled "weblogs and emergent democracy" <http://digbig.com/4sybh> where he outlines how blogs and other 2.0 technologies will help shape democracy. Yochai Benkler has written a riveting book (available free online: <http://digbig.com/4sybg>) titled "The Wealth of Networks", in which he explains and documents how peer productions are changing markets and freedom. The arguments used by these two authors revolve around the network effect. How can an issue go from obscure to front page in a matter of five links and lead people to act and change things? A site like dotherightthing.com leverages the wisdom of the crowd to evaluate corporations and hold them accountable. By asking users to vote, tag or flag issues, these sites hope to become forces of change and get organisation to, well ... do the right thing. A similar issue aims at doing the same for the US government. GovTracks <http://www.govtrack.us/> mashes up various information sources to help regular citizens track their elected officials, key legislative issues, voting records etc.

If these initiatives do not yet have huge visibility, they are a model of the things to come.

Making a difference, in hard, cold cash: the Long Tail of micro-donations

And finally, what about fundraising? Raising awareness, having conversations around development issues and sharing photos could be labelled the first wave of 2.0 applied to development. But what if there was something much more tangible (money for example) coming?

Over 3 years ago, Fred Wilson, a popular blogger and venture capitalist out of New York City decided to sign up <http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2004/03/contextual_targ.html> for the AdSense program offered by Google and to contribute the revenue generated by his traffic to the Grameen Bank. Small step, yes. But scale that up and it could make for a significant amount of cash for various social causes.

See also GoodSearch <http://www.goodsearch.com/>, which helps monetise traffic much in the same way most site do, via advertising, except that, here again, a portion of the revenues are contributed back to social causes. Even Microsoft launched their own program, labeled I'M <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/>. The idea is that a portion of the advertising revenue generated by users of the Live Messengers IM software would be allocated to social causes.

There is something more than just a gimmick here. As it becomes increasingly easier to put your money where you mouth is, why not think about fundraising through Linked In and other social networks where you put your money on causes that you, your friends and the rest of the crowd filtered and recommended for you?

The very secretive Project Agape seems to want to do something along those lines by 'applying virality to altruism'. No specific details are available at the time of writing but given that the founder was behind Napster and Facebook, a healthy dose of 'sociality' is to be expected.

More to come

We have seen that many of the initial uses of Web 2.0 were focused on raising awareness around issues by leveraging word of mouth. We also discussed a second wave where applications and sites are more focused on getting people to collaborate, and a third wave focused on monetising traffic and attention to support social causes. Given the short time frame in which these three phases have happened, and given the increasing pressure on governments, international organisations and large NGOs to be more transparent, there is little doubt that much is yet to come.

As our world increasingly looks like a village, as new information sources become available and as more people get connected (see "The Internationalisation of Web 2.0" at <http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page6686.cfm>), it is inevitable that new, revolutionary applications will spring up and take the development sector by storm. The challenge therefore for existing 1.0 players like the World Bank and the United Nations is not to decide whether they should 'comply' to Web 2.0 but to actually embrace the technology and principles and maintain (or redefine) their relevance. Medium to large size non-profits also need to ask themselves questions about their relevance in this highly competitive, highly fragmented environment. How can they invest in technology, people and applications, not to be cool but to leverage their competitive advantage (be it their donors, knowledge, data or assets)? Smaller non-profits have proven the most innovative so far in their use of 2.0 and the question arises whether they will still be able to compete for attention once the entire sector has moved to this brave new world. The upcoming Web2fordev conference <http://www.web2fordev.net>, hosted by FAO, looks like an interesting place to get the discussion going.

 

Two related pieces caught my eye on techmeme yesterday. One by Mike at techdirt wondering why people are such jerks online and the other by Vint Cerf, the resident evangelist at google.

Whereas Mike believes that the lack of visual cues encourage people to let loose and act like trolls, Cerf argues that the web is merely a reflection of society and that no technology can fix it. He says:

If you stand in front of a mirror and you don't like what you see, it does not help to fix the mirror.

Boy do I agree with this. It reminded me of the blogstorm Mena Trott faced a couple of years ago when, in a keynote asking for bloggers to be more civil to each others, she ended up calling a participant an asshole! Sweet Irony huh? (read the insulted account )

The medium is not the point. Bloggers, surfers, economists...it's just people. There are good people, bad people, smart and dumb people. People full of love and others full of hate.

Ultimately, it will come down to this: We are increasingly empowered as commercial, social and politic beings but, as spiderman would say, with great power comes great responsibility. The web, by shifting the power to us is also shifting the responsibilities. Are we up for it or do we just want the good part?

In 10, 15, 100 years from now when all is known and connected, what will the mirror reflect?

A responsible, ethical society who cares about the future or a cutthroat "every man for himself" jungle? It depends whether you believe that men are good by nature or not. What do you think?

Steve Rubel tried to test the effectiveness of memetrackers (memeorandum and tailrank) along with other search engines. He basically monitored how fast one of his post was spreading and how good a job were all the engines doing at picking it up.

But, similar to the conversation on the classified business happening on Jarvis's post, Rubel's post actually has Gabe Rivera from memeo and Kevin Burton from tailrank discuss the pros and cons of their service on the comments section. They are later joined by Jeff Clavier and Randy Charles Morin. Nice to see these guys discuss in the open.  

Edgeio, the service created by Michael Arrington of techcrunch and others sent me a password to check it out. I did and i like the concept.

Basically, Edgeio allows bloggers who assign a tag to a blog post ("listing" is one of them) to have this post published one edgeio, along with potentially many others, thereby creating an ubber marketplace that aggregates, organizes and re-publish gazillions of listings from all around the web. 

I very much like the idea of writing my listing on my blog, without having to register or create an account and let technology find me a buyer, web-wide. This is directly in line with the concept of personomies in the sense that it enables me to find a buyer. Not e-bay or craigslist. Like Jarvis says, this model could be adopted by other services like google and yahoo answers, dating services, movie reviews.

With internet searches playing an increasingly important role in murder trials, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation calling for a boycott of Google's desktop, with cellular phone data being available online, with Yahoo! helping out censors and dictators jail dissidents... privacy and online identity have never been such a hot issue.

The advertising business needs to stop playing dumb and educate consumers on the fundamental principles of online advertising. Users must know about every technology used, technique employed, every potential usage or resell of their data.

Why? because transparency builds trust.

Look at the cookie issue

For the average web user, cookies are evil little snitches that should be deleted regularly, like parasites. As we (people in the "industry") know, cookies can prove to be extremelly useful for both publishers, users and advertisers. Did anyone explain this to Joe Schmo? No. So he deletes all of his cookies regularly or installs adware removal tool that does not distinguishes between evil or good cookies. This creates a vicious circle that, in the long run, prevents relationships to be built. Even though reports conflict (Jupiter says 58%, Atlas says less (pdf)), all publishers, advertisers agree that cookies have a bad rep.

Sitepoint reports that amazon is getting ready to beta test an adsense-like program. Not to promote its own products but to actually feature third party advertisers.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, adsense is run by google and allows site owners to display advertising based on the content of their site and generate revenue each time one of these ads is clicked. It accounts for 42% of google's revenue, as per the latest filing.

This is a new category. When I started this blog, I wanted to focus on the incredibly personal aspect of the web (personomies) and how in turn, it will help us create extremelly meaningful and tight communities that will affect the fabric of modern's society, hopefully for the better. I call it communITism: IT powered communism. I know it's a provocative title. But let me clarify something.

Communism has different meanings depending on which side of the atlantic you stand. In the US, it's McCarthy, the cold war, and represents a generally flawed regime that killed thousands. In Europe, and particularly in France, it still represents the idea of solidarity, conveys a sense of togetherness. It might be an utopia but there is, indeniably, a certain attractiveness to it.

When I was studying law on the french riviera (sounds weird huh?)...I became really interested in one particular concept in commercial law: Affectio Societatis. After a bit of research to find the english equivalent, I found this document (ctrl+f' it) that describes it as the "spirit of cooperation". It goes:
The combining of contributions and the sharing of profits are not always enough to distinguish a contract of partnership from other juridical acts, such as association and indivision. The courts and legal authors have therefore added an indispensable subjective criterion: the intention to be involved in a partnership or affectio societatis, which is enshrined in the new Civil Code by the expression «spirit of cooperation». 

Yahoo is largely betting on man, Google on machine and Amazon on a hybrid.

• Yahoo has acquired a bunch of social companies in the hopes that the wisdom of the crowd will create perfect information environments (as in relevant, timely and authoritative) because of what other human beings have declared, tagged, categorized.
• Google wants to reach the same goal by observing what humans browse, click, search, without the explicit input of the user.
• Amazon is using both. Recently opening up tagging is smart as I do not think it is possible to reach such a state of relevancy (sp?) without combining semantic analysis with collaborative filtering or customization with personalization.