Aaron Krol at BioITWorld: “The game is simple. On the left-hand side of the screen you see a cube containing a misshapen 3D figure, a bit like a tree branch with a gall infestation. To the right is a razor-thin cross-section of the cube, a grainy image of overlapping gray blobs. Clicking on a blob colors it in, like using the paint bucket tool in MS Paint, while also sending colorful extensions out from the branch to the left. Working your way through 256 of these cross-sections, your job is to extend the branch through the cube, identifying which blobs are continuous with the branch and which are nearby distractions.
It hardly sounds like a game at all, but strange to say, there’s something very compelling about playing EyeWire. Maybe it’s watching the branches grow and fork as you discover new connections. Maybe it’s how quickly you can rack up progress, almost not noticing time go by as you span your branches through cube after cube.
“It draws you in,” says Nikitas Serafetinidis ― or Nseraf, as he’s known in-game. “There’s an unexplained component that makes this game highly addictive.”
Serafetinidis is the world record holder in EyeWire, a game whose players are helping to build a three-dimensional map of brain cells in the retina. The images in EyeWire are in fact photos taken with an electron microscope at the Max Planck Institute of Medical Research in Heidelberg: each one represents a tiny sliver of a mouse’s retina, just 20 nanometers thick. The “blobs” are thin slices of closely adjoined neurons, and the “branch” shows the path of a single cell, which can cross through hundreds of thousands of those images….(More)”
The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age
The Hague Declaration: “New technologies are revolutionising the way humans can learn about the world and about themselves. These technologies are not only a means of dealing with Big Data1, they are also a key to knowledge discovery in the digital age; and their power is predicated on the increasing availability of data itself. Factors such as increasing computing power, the growth of the web, and governmental commitment to open access2 to publicly-funded research are serving to increase the availability of facts, data and ideas.
However, current legislative frameworks in different legal jurisdictions may not be cast in a way which supports the introduction of new approaches to undertaking research, in particular content mining. Content mining is the process of deriving information from machine-readable material. It works by copying large quantities of material, extracting the data, and recombining it to identify patterns and trends.
At the same time, intellectual property laws from a time well before the advent of the web limit the power of digital content analysis techniques such as text and data mining (for text and data) or content mining (for computer analysis of content in all formats)3. These factors are also creating inequalities in access to knowledge discovery in the digital age. The legislation in question might be copyright law, law governing patents or database laws – all of which may restrict the ability of the user to perform detailed content analysis.
Researchers should have the freedom to analyse and pursue intellectual curiosity without fear of monitoring or repercussions. These freedoms must not be eroded in the digital environment. Likewise, ethics around the use of data and content mining continue to evolve in response to changing technology.
Computer analysis of content in all formats, that is content mining, enables access to undiscovered public knowledge and provides important insights across every aspect of our economic, social and cultural life. Content mining will also have a profound impact for understanding society and societal movements (for example, predicting political uprisings, analysing demographical changes). Use of such techniques has the potential to revolutionise the way research is performed – both academic and commercial….(More: Declaration (PDF); Infographic)”
Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Paper by Prof. Nicholas A Christakis et al in The Lancet: “Information and behaviour can spread through interpersonal ties. By targeting influential individuals, health interventions that harness the distributive properties of social networks could be made more effective and efficient than those that do not. Our aim was to assess which targeting methods produce the greatest cascades or spillover effects and hence maximise population-level behaviour change…..Deployment of certain types of health interventions via network targeting, without increasing the number of individuals targeted or the resources used, could enhance the adoption and efficiency of those interventions, thereby improving population health….(More)
Advances in Crowdsourcing
New book edited by Garrigos-Simon, Fernando J., Gil-Pechuán, Ignacio, Estelles-Miguel, Sofia: “This book attempts to link some of the recent advances in crowdsourcing with advances in innovation and management. It contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it provides a global definition, insights and examples of this managerial perspective resulting in a theoretical framework. Second, it explores the relationship between crowdsourcing and technological innovation, the development of social networks and new behaviors of Internet users. Third, it explores different crowdsourcing applications in various sectors such as medicine, tourism, information and communication technology (ICT), and marketing. Fourth, it observes the ways in which crowdsourcing can improve production, finance, management and overall managerial performance.
Crowdsourcing, also known as “massive outsourcing” or “voluntary outsourcing,” is the act of taking a job or a specific task usually performed by an employee of a company or contractors, and outsourcing it to a large group of people or a community (crowd or mass) via the Internet, through an open call. The term was coined by Jeff Howe in a 2006 issue of Wired magazine. It is being developed in different sciences (i.e., medicine, engineering, ICT, management) and is used in the most successful companies of the modern era (i.e., Apple, Facebook, Inditex, Starbucks). The developments in crowdsourcing has theoretical and practical implications, which will be explored in this book.
Including contributions from international academics, scholars and professionals within the field, this book provides a global, multidimensional perspective on crowdsourcing.…(More)”
Slacktivism and the social benefits of social video: Sharing a video to ‘help’ a cause
Cat Jones at FirstMonday: “Interest in online ‘slacktivism’ is high both within and outside academia, and the online sharing of cause-related campaigns is increasing, but research into the extent to which ‘slacktivism’ applies to the act of sharing online content to ‘help’ a cause is limited. Slacktivism, as used in much of today’s popular discourse, is defined as ‘feel-good online activism [with] zero political or social impact’ (Morozov, 2009). Here, a survey-based analysis investigates social videos’ impacts on U.K. and U.S. viewers. Results show that the stronger viewers’ motivations are to share to help a cause, the stronger their motivations are to find out more afterwards. Further, a case study shows that social videos that motivate viewers to share the video ‘because it’s for a good cause, and I want to help’ (cause-related sharing versus, for example, to appear knowledgeable about a subject), can also prompt real-life actions, including donations. These results indicate that cause-related video sharing does have an impact, and therefore is not slacktivism by Morozov’s definition. Preliminary analysis suggests that of viewers sharing to ‘help’ causes, those discriminating in their choice of sharing audience (narrow vs. broad) are more likely to further engage than indiscriminate sharers. Result patterns from U.S. narrowcast sharers differ from those of other groups, indicating that tie strength and cultural differences may play a role in modifying slacktivist behaviors….(More)”
Crowdsourced website flags up sexism in the workplace
Springwise: “Female jobseekers can now review the treatment of women in their potential workplace via an online platform called InHerSight. The website collates anonymous reviews from former and current employees — both male and female — so that women can find out more about the company’s policies, office culture and other potential issues before applying for or accepting a job there.
A recent survey by Cosmopolitan magazine found that one in three women are sexually harassed at work and InHerSight enables those women to communicate misconduct and other problematic corporate policies. Importantly, they can do so without fear of recrimination or consequence, since the scorecards are entirely anonymous. Users can complete surveys about their experience at any given company — either adding to an existing score or creating a new profile — by scoring them on 14 categories including their stance on maternity leave, flexible work hours and female representation in top positions. They can also leave a written review of the company. The crowdsourced data is then used to create comprehensive scorecards for other users to view.
Founder Ursula Mead envisions the site as a TripAdvisor for women in the workplace and hopes that by holding companies accountable for their support for women, it will encourage them to review and improve their treatment….(More)”
Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions
New book edited by Marc Rotenberg, Julia Horwitz, and Jeramie Scott: “The threats to privacy are well known: the National Security Agency tracks our phone calls, Google records where we go online and how we set our thermostats, Facebook changes our privacy settings when it wishes, Target gets hacked and loses control of our credit card information, our medical records are available for sale to strangers, our children are fingerprinted and their every test score saved for posterity, and small robots patrol our schoolyards while drones may soon fill our skies.
The contributors to this anthology don’t simply describe these problems or warn about the loss of privacy- they propose solutions. They look closely at business practices, public policy, and technology design and ask, “Should this continue? Is there a better approach?” They take seriously the dictum of Thomas Edison: “What one creates with his hand, he should control with his head.” It’s a new approach to the privacy debate, one that assumes privacy is worth protecting, that there are solutions to be found, and that the future is not yet known. This volume will be an essential reference for policy makers and researchers, journalists and scholars, and others looking for answers to one of the biggest challenges of our modern day. The premise is clear: there’s a problem- let’s find a solution….(More)”
What Is Community Anyway?
David M. Chavis & Kien Lee at Stanford Social Innovation Review: “Community” is so easy to say. The word itself connects us with each other. It describes an experience so common that we never really take time to explain it. It seems so simple, so natural, and so human. In the social sector, we often add it to the names of social innovations as a symbol of good intentions (for example, community mental health, community policing, community-based philanthropy, community economic development).
But the meaning of community is complex. And, unfortunately, insufficient understanding of what a community is and its role in the lives of people in diverse societies has led to the downfall of many well-intended “community” efforts.
Adding precision to our understanding of community can help funders and evaluators identify, understand, and strengthen the communities they work with. There has been a great deal of research in the social sciences about what a human community is (see for example, Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Nesbit, 1953; Putnam, 2000). Here, we blend that research with our experience as evaluators and implementers of community change initiatives.
It’s about people.
First and foremost, community is not a place, a building, or an organization; nor is it an exchange of information over the Internet. Community is both a feeling and a set of relationships among people. People form and maintain communities to meet common needs….
People live in multiple communities.
Since meeting common needs is the driving force behind the formation of communities, most people identify and participate in several of them, often based on neighborhood, nation, faith, politics, race or ethnicity, age, gender, hobby, or sexual orientation….
Communities are nested within each other.
Just like Russian Matryoshka dolls, communities often sit within other communities. For example, in a neighborhood—a community in and of itself—there may be ethnic or racial communities, communities based on people of different ages and with different needs, and communities based on common economic interests….
Communities have formal and informal institutions.
Communities form institutions—what we usually think of as large organizations and systems such as schools, government, faith, law enforcement, or the nonprofit sector—to more effectively fulfill their needs….
Communities are organized in different ways.
Every community is organized to meet its members’ needs, but they operate differently based on the cultures, religions, and other experiences of their members. For example, while the African American church is generally understood as playing an important role in promoting health education and social justice for that community, not all faith institutions such as the mosque or Buddhist temple are organized and operate in the same way….(More)
Citizen Engagement through ICT
AGORA Brief – May 2015: “Communication has come a long way in recent years. The ‘90s brought us the first widely available internet browser (1993) and the first mobile phone with an internet connection (1996). The past decade saw the evolution of these tools into new digital networks and resources: FlickR and Facebook in 2004; Youtube in 2005, and Twitter in 2006. Today, 10% of the world’s population has a fixed internet subscription and almost 30% has a mobile subscription, with the figures doubling in developed countries. Additionally, there are now 7.1 billion mobile phones and 1.9 billion smartphones with an internet subscription (ITU figures).
Parliaments around the world have embraced ICT and other new technologies at varying rates, and to varying degrees of success. The great majority of legislatives now have a website and many of them are active on social media networks. Some have gone further still, piloting mobile constituency offices, virtual hearings and a whole range of digital platforms designed to improve communication between citizens and their representatives. Yet, countless opportunities for better use of these technologies go unexplored.
This brief illustrates how new technologies can better connect parliament with the people it represents. It discusses the use of ICT in administration, the adoption of social media, the development of citizen engagement platforms and the strategies employed by parliamentary monitoring organisations. It also offers suggestions on how to keep costs down and mobilise support. …(More)”
What’s gone wrong with democracy
Essay in The Economist: “Democracy was the most successful political idea of the 20th century. Why has it run into trouble, and what can be done to revive it?….
Even those lucky enough to live in mature democracies need to pay close attention to the architecture of their political systems. The combination of globalisation and the digital revolution has made some of democracy’s most cherished institutions look outdated. Established democracies need to update their own political systems both to address the problems they face at home, and to revitalise democracy’s image abroad. Some countries have already embarked upon this process. America’s Senate has made it harder for senators to filibuster appointments. A few states have introduced open primaries and handed redistricting to independent boundary commissions. Other obvious changes would improve matters. Reform of party financing, so that the names of all donors are made public, might reduce the influence of special interests. The European Parliament could require its MPs to present receipts with their expenses. Italy’s parliament has far too many members who are paid too much, and two equally powerful chambers, which makes it difficult to get anything done.
But reformers need to be much more ambitious. The best way to constrain the power of special interests is to limit the number of goodies that the state can hand out. And the best way to address popular disillusion towards politicians is to reduce the number of promises they can make. The key to a healthier democracy, in short, is a narrower state—an idea that dates back to the American revolution. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men”, Madison argued, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The notion of limited government was also integral to the relaunch of democracy after the second world war. The United Nations Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) established rights and norms that countries could not breach, even if majorities wanted to do so.
These checks and balances were motivated by fear of tyranny. But today, particularly in the West, the big dangers to democracy are harder to spot. One is the growing size of the state. The relentless expansion of government is reducing liberty and handing ever more power to special interests. The other comes from government’s habit of making promises that it cannot fulfil, either by creating entitlements it cannot pay for or by waging wars that it cannot win, such as that on drugs. Both voters and governments must be persuaded of the merits of accepting restraints on the state’s natural tendency to overreach. Giving control of monetary policy to independent central banks tamed the rampant inflation of the 1980s, for example. It is time to apply the same principle of limited government to a broader range of policies. Mature democracies, just like nascent ones, require appropriate checks and balances on the power of elected government….
Several places are making progress towards getting this mixture right. The most encouraging example is California. Its system of direct democracy allowed its citizens to vote for contradictory policies, such as higher spending and lower taxes, while closed primaries and gerrymandered districts institutionalised extremism. But over the past five years California has introduced a series of reforms, thanks in part to the efforts of Nicolas Berggruen, a philanthropist and investor. The state has introduced a “Think Long” committee to counteract the short-term tendencies of ballot initiatives. It has introduced open primaries and handed power to redraw boundaries to an independent commission. And it has succeeded in balancing its budget—an achievement which Darrell Steinberg, the leader of the California Senate, described as “almost surreal”.
Similarly, the Finnish government has set up a non-partisan commission to produce proposals for the future of its pension system. At the same time it is trying to harness e-democracy: parliament is obliged to consider any citizens’ initiative that gains 50,000 signatures. But many more such experiments are needed—combining technocracy with direct democracy, and upward and downward delegation—if democracy is to zigzag its way back to health.
John Adams, America’s second president, once pronounced that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” He was clearly wrong. Democracy was the great victor of the ideological clashes of the 20th century. But if democracy is to remain as successful in the 21st century as it was in the 20th, it must be both assiduously nurtured when it is young—and carefully maintained when it is mature….(More)