http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/peer-producing-human-rights/

@Paul, you may want to delve into the field of digital activism to find examples of how technology makes the specific difference that is claimed for it:

http://www.digiactive.org

Exactly: it was only when Comer was shown the CCTV clip that she went public and filed a complaint! Instant infamy.

I think this case shows that we have to continue aspiring to have institutions tasked with verifying information and creating lawful consequences for breaches of the law. What happens when we stop believing this is ever possible, and that the crowdsourced info is an end in itself? What would Wikipedia be without a defamation law?

@Sanjana — “The metrics of measuring impact, or put another way, building up the evidence base of ICTs actually “making the specific difference that is claimed for it” would be an interesting study for luminaries in the field like you, Tom and Paul to take on?”

Now there’s a research proposal. I know that John Lannon at the Human Rights Impact Resource Centre has pulled together a shed-load of background on appraisal, evaluation and impact assessment from the informatics world, but I’m not sure what he intends the final output to be. A set of “rules of thumb” for tech projects in human rights, aimed at practitioners would be handy.

I see your Catch 22: should we air the dirty laundry outside, when the haters might burn our clothes? We can start by documenting in good time, and more extensively the “safer” uses of new tech in related areas, and supplement it with discussion amongst ourselves about what these may tell us about more controversial uses. I guess that’s what we doing here with crowdsourcing. We could also tone sh*t down. It’s easy to become very partisan about tech, particularly when we are all competing to find funds to keep the lights on. Doesn’t a gradual over-egging of the capabilities of our favoured tool or approache creep in? It’s quite hard in such a wearying atmosphere to keep comment and critique productive and in good faith – it’s even harder to accept it as such. I think this causes a breakdown of trust, wearing down the will to ask for help and comment privately.

This is a shared bother. From Ushahidi’s own Swift River concept (http://blog.ushahidi.com/index.php/2009/02/04/crisis-info-crowdsourcing-the-filter/) to the ICT4Peace Foundation Crisis Information Management Demonstrator (http://www.ict4peace.org/view_blog_posts-1-v-168.html) that seeks to augment the platform with more robust information qualification and analysis tools (and for a closed, trusted network – not public writ large) there’s work afoot to make sense of the noise of crowdsourcing.

I like the term though, but that’s because I live (and have grown up in) a country hugely partial to violent censorship. More eyeballs on events and processes is for me refreshing, even if they are by definition partial accounts. The danger in crowdsourcing though is that they may not be seen as such, and this is where a single SMS can exacerbate violence hundreds of miles away – rapid onset disasters facilitated by new media!

As for your second points – it depends? A “camjo” with a mobile phone who captures footage of police abuse can post this video to Witness to create a storm of advocacy against police brutality. Quieter initiatives such as oral histories through audio and video, or even celebrating champions within Govt who stand up against corruption, or document, through the eyes of children armed with mobiles, life in conflict or with HIV / AIDS – these can be moving, powerful narratives that lead, over time, to social change. Eyeballs on Darfur through Google Earth catalyses and sustains limited and transient global interest in claims of genocide. An initiative like Wikileaks can support whistleblowers and strengthen transparency and accountability in polity and civil society, including in NGOs.

My gut instinct, forged through the bloody difficult work I do is that tech helps, but I would be the last to suggest that it is a panacea. The metrics of measuring impact, or put another way, building up the evidence base of ICTs actually “making the specific difference that is claimed for it” would be an interesting study for luminaries in the field like you, Tom and Paul to take on?

Take care,

Sanjana

Catch 22?

I have in the past critiqued toolkits, for e.g. Tactical Technology Collective’s Citizen Journalism Toolkit (http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/tactical-technology-collective-citizen-journalism-toolkit-how-not-to-do-a-toolkit/) and five years ago, wrote in detail about our experience with ICTs in tsunami response (After the deluge : InfoShare’s Response to the Tsunami – http://sanjanah.googlepages.com/thoughtsonictandpeacebuilding).

Today, my work as you know involved pissing off a lot of parties. New media, ICTs and all that jazz helps, but it’s not just boys with toys. These are, as you know, real lives, real issues where real compromises are needed with very unpleasant people to secure larger commitments towards human rights and humanitarian aid. These are never easy challenges, no prescriptive model works. This is why I agree with Paul – we can do a song and dance about new tech, but my own work is informed by a sober appreciation for the unmatched power of a repressive regime to harm, hate and kill.

Take care,

Sanjana

Crowdsourcing in Crisis: A More Critical Reflection
http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/crowdsourcing-in-crisis-a-more-critical-reflection/

Looking forward to continuing the conversation!

Thanks again