Posts Tagged ‘proposal’

Jumping Through the Looking Glass [session proposal]

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

I would like to propose a session, much like Kel’s and Ned’s that interrogates the process of creating discursive social worlds through social media (as well as the possibility of transforming old media into social media. What qualifies as social media by the way?). I’m interested in, both practically and theoretically, interrogating the ways social media can be used in cultural institutions in such a way that transforms the computer from a looking glass into a window; the ways it can facilitate the creation of a discursive space between privileged communities and those who are under-represented/underserved, as well as communities that are separated geographically.

In my own recent anthropological research, I’ve been investigating media ecologies and the way media shapes the way we experience our world. I’m particularly interested in the intersection of sounds and screens, and so what I intend to put on the table are interesting ways in which sounds and screens can be integrated into exhibits to foster communication and interaction, as opposed to allowing technology to re-enforce the “cult of the individual” (to steal a term from Durkheim). I am intrigued by PodCast tours, the new iPod tour applications, and twittr.

Like I said, I would really like this session to interrogate technology, not just glorify it, through both theoretical and practical lenses.

See you all soon!

Session Proposal: Social Action

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Hi everyone, I’m Sara Weisman, the Outreach Coordinator for the Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (the department that deals with contemporary genocide at the Museum).  My proposal overlaps with submissions from Dan and Rebekah but I’m very much interested in discussing effective social action tools and methods of using social media to engage audiences in the physical space of the Museum and online.

We recently launched a new interactive exhibit at the Museum to encourage visitors to the Museum and to the Web site to learn about recent cases of genocide (Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur) and write pledges about what actions they are going to take to prevent and halt genocide.  The interactive installation is  called From Memory to Action: Meeting the Challenge of Genocide. Visitors to the installation at the Museum are asked to write a pledge in the installation space.  These pledges appear on the wall in the room for a few seconds and the pledge is available on our Web site when the visitor logs in with their unique user ID.  Visitors to the Web site, who haven’t visited the physical exhibit, are also invited to participate by creating accounts and making pledges to be added to our pledge wall.  While visitors to the installation at the Museum have been engaged and made pledges (30,000 collected since it opened in April), very few visitors have taken the next step to log in to the Web site, learn more and access our resources.  Some have suggested it would be helpful to collect the email addresses of people who make pledges so that we may follow up with visitors but we worry this would make visitors less likely to participate.  We also currently have many fields required to log into the Web site which could be responsible for deterring visitors.  I welcome discussion and thoughts on how we can draw more visitors from the physical Museum space to our Web site to help build and sustain relationships with visitors.  I’m also interested in discussing how much personal information we can ask a visitor to share without drawing them away from participating.  Lastly, due to the technology involved with the installation, we have had difficulties ensuring the constant functioning of the pledge wall raising the question of how beneficial it is to use technology with all of its kinks vs. functionality.

I look forward to discussing these questions and more.

Session Proposal: Effective use of Video Advocacy- What is the Value Added?

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Two short weeks ago over 800 youth anti-genocide leaders from around the country came to Washington D.C. as part of Pledge2Protect, a conference designed to educate, empower and highlight the work of activists who are driving the movement to prevent and stop genocide and mass atrocities (see this blog post to learn more about the conference and the campaign).

Monday, November 11th was also the culmination of the first phase of Pledge on Camera, part of Pledge2Protect, and a partnership between WITNESS and STAND, the student-led division of Genocide Intervention Network.

Over 600 youth anti-genocide leaders lobbied their Senators as part of the largest genocide prevention lobby day in history – and they’re also ushering in a new way for citizens to lobby Congress.

Pledge On Camera was designed to remind Congress of the moral and political imperative to ensure that genocide will not occur on their watch or in the future – to make “never again” a reality once and for all.  The anti-genocide movement is calling for Congress to create the first comprehensive genocide  and mass atrocities prevention legislation.

In this first phase of the campaign, and in support of the lobby day, students have created over 500 video messages for their Senators.  Chapters in each state chose the best messages from their state and integrated and remixed them into the core video (and below) that STAND and WITNESS have produced (view full credits).

Click here to watch personalized video examples, ranging from fully remixed videos to fantastic video introductions and calls to action from student and community leaders in the Senators’ states.

As noted in another session proposal, video as an advocacy tool is increasingly accessible, with many more influentials taking notice and being galvanized to action as a result. The National Journal reported on the potential impact of video as an advocacy tool in a cover story earlier this fall (featuring the campaign noted above), and a major takeaway was that video advocacy has barely begin to scratch the surface of our collective efforts. Video can play a multitude of roles in our causes.

Now that we have empowered hundreds of STAND activists around the country with the skills, experience, and understanding of video as an advocacy tool, we are looking forward to building off of this foundation.  Knowing that many other organizations and causes are working to define the role that video and custom content play in their advocacy, we would like to discuss video advocacy from 30,000 feet.

Topics to consider for the session might include:

-lessons learned
-integration of video into preexisting advocacy campaigns
-value added of collaboratively edited content
-efficacy of high production value content
-useful methods of delivery for video

[Session proposal] On commenting and issues of reverence

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

I manage most of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s social media outreach and I’d like to pitch a session to talk through the issues of commenting on different social media channels in order to think about how the Museum can serve its memorial and education functions effectively through different interfaces and different cultures of use.

For instance, Flickr’s comments (which appear below photos) and notes (which appear on top of photos) have raised some flags for us. There are plenty of good reasons to put the Museum’s photographs on Flickr or any other photo-sharing site (access, collective knowledge, etc.), but since the Museum is primarily responsible for safe-guarding the memory of Holocaust victims, is Flickr an okay place to do that? I’m interested here in the point that when we put photographs of the Holocaust on the web, we’re arguably putting artifacts out there. (Yes, these are “digital surrogates,” but not in content—the image is the same whether it’s printed on paper or composed out of bits.) If artifacts bear witness to the lives and suffering of people, can we put them on Flickr and let people mark them up with tags, and comments and notes, with the latter actually amounting to a defacement of the photo since it appears on the image? Can we put stuff on Flickr and turn off all the conduits for communication, even if it’s a violation of the culture of the space? If you have to turn off the commenting features in a social media space, is it better to opt out?

I’d also like to talk a little bit about how we can handle the comments we do get in more useful ways. First, I want to think about why we save all of them in these spaces. We don’t record idle chatter in gallery spaces (at least, not without appropriate signage), so why should we record it online? Is it appropriate to save everything people contribute to social media spaces? If not, then can we just delete all comments wholesale after a proclaimed period of time—90 days, or whatever? (I’m not huge on this, but I want to play devil’s advocate.) If it is appropriate, can we acknowledge the limitations of the interfaces and ask: should we archive comments after certain time periods and start fresh so people don’t have to scroll through 90 pages of commentary?

My point here is to think through preserving all of these comments and if we’re going to save them, how to make them useful. Can we create ways to sort and tag them so people looking for meaningful threads of dialogue or researchers or museum staff trying to track interactions can cut through the content in more efficient ways than scrolling? (Note: I think I’m proposing this a bit as a reaction against the way social media sites privilege “most recent” activity. While I think it’s important to be able to know what’s happening “right now,” or tomorrow, sometimes what I’m interested in happened 6 months or 6 years ago.)

I’d be curious to know from the more tech-savvy than I how feasible it would be to take comments from social media spaces and drop them into a digital archive that would allow searching and categorizing by platform, content, content type, etc. And I’m curious to know if people think this is worth doing. Thanks for reading.

Proposals – please tag them “proposal”

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Unfortunately the blog is having a little programming issue and is currently failing to show pages under the “Proposal” tab (we’re working on it), so it may appear that older proposals/posts are disappearing below the fold.

As a band-aid, I’ve gone in and tagged every submitted proposal so far with “proposal,” which will pull them all up together. Hopefully this issue will be fixed by tomorrow, but in the meantime, please tag your proposals” with “proposal” so that they’ll be visible to everyone.

Thanks for your help with this.

Session Proposal: Measuring Social Media for the Social Conscious

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

this recent article http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117581 is intriguing, as it is part of the discussion that started the idea to have this conference in the first place:  social media, web 2.0 tools, gaming, might attract audiences to participate, but don’t just casually “fit” in to consciousness raising, action provoking, emotionally heavy but inspiring content. So, a session on how we as a community can measure success using social media in our unique circumstances just might be interesting. for a short time on a Saturday. Thoughts?

[Session Proposal-ish] Meaningful, useful discussion 2.0

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Our organization, the Freedom Project, recently closed our physical museum space and is now doing programming throughout the city of Chicago focusing on freedom and the First Amdendment.  Our goal is to help people understand the relevance of the First Amendment, and also to create a place for meaningful discussion where people feel safe and respected regardless of viewpoint.  In our public programs, we’re able to foster good discussion and debate around all different topics, and hear lots of voices and opinions.  In our social media, however, we’re having some trouble creating that same type of dialogue — or any type of dialogue, to be honest.  Web 2.0 has been touted as a way to engage new audiences and engage many voices in discussions, and we’d like to harness that power, but we’re not sure how.

While I obviously would not be able to necessarily lead a discussion on what to do to create and inspire meaningful discussions via social media, I would love to have a roundtable, perhaps in conjunction with Dan’s proposal, or just over drinks, frankly, where I can hear from some others about what you’ve tried, and what has worked.  We really want to be a place for open, safe discussion on contentious issues, and hope that social media can help us achieve that.  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Can’t wait to meet you all!

Kel

[Session Proposal] Interaction as a Two-Way Street

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

My name is Ned Prutzer and I am an intern for the Museum who is majoring in English and American Studies at the University of Maryland – College Park.  I have worked with social media in prior internships, and I anticipate a productive discussion regarding the manner in which the Museum can extend its current use of social media while maintaining the professional nature of its mission.

What I would like to pose as a topic for discussion is how the Museum can implement its use of social networking into the visitor’s experience of its exhibits – that is, how it can provide a more interactive experience on each end of the spectrum, to those who are coming to the Museum and those who are active on our pages.  How can we use varying mediums of social media to replicate the experience of visiting the Museum as best as possible?  How could we go about making an exclusively on-line experience of the Museum for those who are unable to come to DC and visit interactive without making it seem inauthentic?

It is clear that other prominent institutions are facing similar questions as they enter the realm of social networking. The Brooklyn Museum of Art, for instance, has digitized some of its collections through ArtShare, consolidated its web pages through the SimplyRSS application on Facebook, and utilized Electronic Comment Kiosks in their exhibits, for which they gather user-generated comments and post them on the walls of the exhibits.

Likewise, over the summer, the Museum hosted an innovative tour focused its architecture that encouraged participants to Twitter on their thoughts and post pictures as the tour was going on.  There’s an interesting blog on the event by Robert Michael Murray of boxednoise that I think is very pertinent to the issues being raised in the un-conference.  Could we extend such an initiative into Twitter-based tours where groups can ask questions for guides to respond to and leave comments for each other to see?  This is a great example of the issues that arise from the questions I proposed earlier, and though the issues I am raising may not be enough to sustain an entire session, I think that these are questions we should keep in mind and address during the un-conference.

[Session proposal] “Historians of the world, (use Web 2.0 tools and) unite!”

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Web 2.0 social computing technologies have signaled the era of “democratization” of archives by allowing users to interact with collections and finding aids, and be proactive in the process of knowledge production. The term “democratization” is of course questionable and controversial considering the “digital divide,” and the easiness with which new media can be manipulated.

Historians doing Jewish history study people whose “memory” is kept in multiple repositories in different countries with often competing and opposing histories, and various languages. The variety of archival holdings (in shape, form, and content) limits what a historian can physically and intellectually do. Web 2.0 social computing environments offer the possibility to overcome such realities that affect our knowledge about history both quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

I would like to explore how historians and “lay people,” through social computing environments, can contribute to scholarship and collection development by populating archives with their amassed, individual knowledge. Social computing environments offer unprecedented opportunities for historians studying common subjects to come together and create a wealth of data.

I will tie this specifically with the case of Sephardic communities in the Balkans. I would like to examine issues of authorship and how these communities can or should impose access restrictions for material that they have produced but now cannot control due to political, legal, linguistic, or geographic reasons.

[Session Proposal] Call to Action: The Role of Interaction Design in Social Action

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Call to action is a phrase we use in interaction design to mean “the thing users need to click on to take the next step”. In an interactive system like a web site, the call to action on a page is usually typically indicative of the page’s purpose. For commerce-enabled sites, the calls to action are straightforward: Add to cart, Check out, Confirm order, etc.

Interaction designers know that there are certain design principles we must apply in order to make the call to action clear. It must be prominent so users know what to click on. It must set expectations so users can click with confidence. Poorly positioned, designed or labeled, a page’s call to action can give users pause, preventing them from completing a task.

I’d love to explore this concept related to *social* action. What must design do to facilitate and precipitate “good”? Can technologies designed to educate help people take the next step, to do something with that education?

As technologies become more pervasive, where we have identities on various social networking sites and participate in various online communities, the need for using these platforms for good increases. The design of these platforms must support behaviors for conscience. Does the design of Facebook, for example, make it easy to promote awareness and “do good”? To put it another way, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and other social sites give us a framework for interacting with others. We need to learn to use that framework to support our behaviors of conscience, but we should also identify its shortcomings. What’s missing from those sites?

During this session, I’d like to highlight some well-established design principles, provide brief critiques of existing social media platforms, and invite participants to identify new requirements. What would our ideal platform look like?