I proposed this in my metaphorical TED speech and on TED.com in a comment beneath Chris Anderson's How web video powers global innovation. So now I want to extrapolate a little bit more as to what I believe this new network could be.
So how does it work?
It would have to be completely powered by the users themselves, something Viacom can't come in and buy. In order to get it started we can start by recruiting like minded thinkers (drawing from the TED community and other similar sources) to become the moderators, administrators, editors, debuggers, programmers, designers and such for the creation of the new site. It would be completely open and infinitely changeable, depending on the latest and greatest idea for it. The shape of the site would be determined by user opinions. The website would be like the internets first ever global democracy. The rating system would be crucial in determining the value of each member in the community and their sway.
The site would have a forum, a chatroom, and sort of public domain, where videos can be uploaded and ranked by all users. There would also be a more exclusive section where only videos that are chosen by the high ranked users make it through, as well as ideas or mission statements chosen by these same respected community members.
The whole thing is open to suggestion... Actually thats kinda the whole point.
I think the rating system would have to be very calculated. Maybe: you can give out Ten ratings per day, something like that. Every rating you give out is listed. Your ability to rate people is respective of your own actual rating. (In order to stop people from creating multiple identities and boosting themselves up). The higher ranked you are the more freely you can rate things.
Well it all needs tweaking. Right now it's an understructure which I hope people can use to build off of and expound upon.
19 comments:
Now you just need a programmer
Great Program ! I'm just following you ;-)
Glad Someones listening.
Your ideas regarding chatrooms and forums take TED away from its roots in what I perceive to be a dangerous way. By drifting too far from the structure already implemented, we risk turning our backs on what has made the site popular to begin with.
I also submitted some suggestions about making the rating system more complex, but I think one problem with that is the clutter factor. Google beat Yahoo by being more streamlined. How can we address this and ensure that people put in the extra effort? Pop out menus?
Finally, the vulnerability to websites like 4chan is something that will have to be dealt with at some point.
No Geoff, this is not TED at all.
Rather an altogether new website, it's only relation to TED is that TED would be the sponsor, it would draw from the TED crowd.
The website once it starts will quickly build itself by having an amorphous and open interface, allowing the users to vote up the best designs and regularly change how it works.
Question:
I'm not sure I understand why creating a new site in addition to TED.
TED, discounting a few trolls (which exist on any forum) is already a good place for discussion and more importantly, is already well established.
In other words, what additional value would the proposed new site provide ?
I agree, TED is fantastic. And even the comment sections are great and have good debates and so on. But I don't propose this idea simply as place for people to debate TED videos. I foresee it as being linked to or sponsored by TED but not actually being TED based at all. TED is great for it's simple stream of videos which people can comment on. Things could be added to make it more user friendly, but as a whole it's great the way it is.
What I'm proposing is a whole new entity which is based on the type of thinking we see in the TED community. I want to create a social network that is purpose/idea driven (as well as completely open to being programmed and re-programmed). Facebook and Myspace are pretty much devoid of intellectual stimulation, we need a website which is focused around heated debates, user uploads, and has a very advanced rating system which allows people to become established in a community of like minded thinkers (so that you have to contribute in order to have validity and can't be some mindless spammer)
Mr. Internet, in order to accomplish what you want you'll need a very different framework and not a regular blog site.
True, Facebook and MySpace are not useful for the purpose of intellectual debates. However, there are already other social networks, such as LinkedIn that provide a more serious room for intellectual interactions.
I see 2 options.
1) presenting TED with suggestions for improvement (which a group of TEDsters already did)
2) developing your very own and independent identity and presence without relying on TED at all.
Having a place just as appendix to TED doesn't really convince me, sorry.
Actually we are 100% on the same page here. Maybe I've failed to articulate my desire properly, and i thank you for bringing up these issues.
I don't want it to be this blog. This blog merely serves as a sounding board where I can get my ideas out there, explain what I want to create so I can rally people who may be able to help me.
And I don't want it to be an appendix to TED, I merely would like the support of the TED community because that is the type of crowd I want to aim this at. I think my biggest mistake is that I am indeed relating it to TED too strongly, and the notion of calling it STEVE is pretty ridiculous (and was fairly tongue and cheek when I came up with it). What I'm calling for does indeed need a framework all its own, it's not a simple task by any means, but it's highly doable with the right group working towards it's creation.
Isn't diaspora (http://www.joindiaspora.com/) very close to what you are looking for, at least as a platform?
Thank you very much for that link. Diaspora sounds amazing, but it is a little unaccessible (at the moment) to those who don't understand programming languages.
But yes Diaspora embodies my exact idea, though it is lacking the directional focus. I only feel that it needs to start off by building a much more open community to begin with, so that everyone is capable of participating in the creation of the program (i.e. a forum and a chat function)
I think it's a great idea. A site where people can post incubator ideas where they want to expand upon. Though how many ideas of importance are people going to want to post that they don't want protected? For instance say I have a business idea that would benefit this environment, but nonetheless it's a business idea that I want to profit from. I post to this site because I want feedback, guidance, and a better direction (consulting from peers). What would stop someone else from taking the idea? Also, how would a site with this magnitude be organized as to filter through the noise? Would there be an economic incentive for those that post highly rated and viewed topics, perhaps from receiving a percentage of advertising income? Would members of the site be invite only or allowed to join after writing perhaps an essay of how they would contribute? Will there be both word/video responses? Think it's a great idea, but not much development.
Perhaps you can go to magazines dedicated to certain fields. You can ask the magazine to post an area of concern, issue that isn't solved, or anything that has been of debate. You can post the idea to the site and encourage everyone from an expert in the field to a person just curious to post responses. The highest rated responses can be posted in the magazine's website or magazine which would give people recognition. Recognition I think would be a key selling factor to this website. I think it's important to have an incentive for experts to be involved in the thought process. It gives the site more credibility and will most likely get the creative juices of others flowing.
Perhaps Wikipedia offers the kind of structure sought: methods for democratized input with jurying, critiquing, assigned moderating of topic areas, internal links to related ideas and resources, etc.
We need a way for the most important ideas and the best contributions to those ideas to rise to the top. Moderators should be carefully selected. An important role of a moderator is to separate noise from signal in an inoffensive way, with rights of appeal.
I think, in the spirit of TED, ideas want to be free -- particularly ideas that are needed to make the world a better place for human flourishing. Worrying about getting paid for one's efforts strikes the wrong chord for me.
Wow. Wonderful responses.
I have actually given it a lot more thought than is posted here, but because i find the blogger format to be constricting and when a post gets too wordy it becomes inaccessible, i decided to leave much of it out.
In response to the business infringement issue:
Ideally the site should be so well established that a business idea which is posted could be immediately copy-written through website and it's users. To start off, before it becomes a properly function and self sustaining entity, i think the topics should focus on global problems, posit ideas in a more general sense about very large issues.
As for the issue of the rating system and the democratization of the website. Well I think that is where the true value of this website lies. I am in the process now of publishing a blogpost about this and I hope anyone who has commented here will continue to make comments and critiques to the follow up post.
I like the idea. In time I might help. I cannot promise. Keep my accountname.
Awesome. This is precisely the type of paradigm shift I feel the internet has needed.
The internet is so open and expansive and yet there really is no good place like the one you're describing. I think simply as an experiment in democracy this should be taken to it's fullest form, it has great potential.
I'd sign up.
Post a Comment