The biggest debates from the day was between those who think that this protest was ‘pointless’ and ‘stupid’ vs those who think that it is ‘important’ and ‘worthy’. I’m fascinated about this question – about strategies for bringing about change, and the enormous gaps between how the debate is framed by both kinds of people.
Now tweeting
- SA President Jacob Zuma irate over artists' rendition of him as Lenin with genitals exposed bit.ly/JL36jJ Pics: bit.ly/J0MJfv 3 hours ago
- When I grow up I wanna have one of the titles of the TED global speakers (preferably 'Diva') bit.ly/INOEry 1 day ago
- 'How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit' bit.ly/KLyXkj Interesting take on trust of diff. online sites 1 day ago
I also write at:
Slideshare feed
- Wikipedia sources: On the books and on the groundSlidedeck from a presentation at the Wikimedia Foundation on the 9th of April, 2012 about how Wikipedians managed and verified sources and citations in the rapidly evolving 2011 Egyptian Revolution Wikipedia article for the Ushahidi ’Understanding Sources’ project. Support for this work was provided by Hivos and the OSI.
- Ushahidi research: Establishing a learning organisationMy presentation from the first Ushahidi and iHub Research seminar at the iHub, Nairobi and streamed online on 11 November, 2011.
- The Missing Wikipedians
Tags
2008
afrigadget
Bangalore
best of
cape town
charl malherbe
co-working
commons
creative commons
crowdsourcing
david bollier
david sasaki
defamation
design
diversity
donn edwards
emag
entrepreneurship
fair comment
financial crisis
freedom of expression
geekretreat
Global Voices
GRE
iheritage
illustration
isummit japan africancommons
jason bronkhorst
johannesburg
joi ito
Khayelitsha
losing
Mark Surman
Mozilla Foundation
photography
reputation
resolutions
SA Blog Awards
South Africa
the open web
Ushahidi
verification
wikipedia
winning
zoopy


2 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 6, 2010 at 8:52 am
Seth Johnson
A practical perspective on this question would be to say that when you’re given a tableau by those with decisionmaking power whose terms are misguided, in which the public is engaged to participate, you can usually reverse the proceeding’s misguided premises by questioning the frame. For example, a government proceeding dealing with “P2P” apps, treating them as if they’re distinct as “P2P” or uniquely different from anything else on the Internet, might be reversed by relating the questions raised to a simple line like “Our Net is P2P.” A few people can effectively affect the outcome of proceedings like this by placing the legitimacy of the frame in question. You just have to be sure that the core of the frame for the proceeding is addressed by the line. This requires tailoring to the circumstances, but is a good bit more methodical and controllable than “freestanding” demonstrations. Its worth can easily be illustrated by relating the tactic to the frame of the event. The least that will happen if it’s done well, is the originally planned action which the framing of the tableau would have tended to lead toward, will either be delayed or have to be pursued in manifest contradiction with the public proceeding’s having shown the action’s illegitimacy.
January 23, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Heather Ford
That’s great advice – especially relevant in the P2P debate. Thanks, Seth.