The Bivings Report - powered by the Bivings Group

Back in January 2009 I started the Master of Information Management program at the University of Maryland, and last semester I took a class on Consumer Health Informatics and another one on Social Computing.  With the permission of both professors, I wrote different versions of a paper for each class about how Wikipedia has maintained accurate health information, and a version of this paper is now available here. The Accuracy of Health Information on Wikipedia (click to access the report) was an interesting paper to write, and I hope that you find it just as interesting to read.

Wikipedia is different from other well known websites with health information in that it allows anyone – subject experts and laypeople – to contribute and edit information that it presents. Given that anyone with access to the site can edit it, scholarly studies have found to the surprise of Wikipedia’s critics that scientific information on the site is as nearly as accurate as that found in Encyclopedia Britannica (read the December 2005 Nature article “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head” that helped publicize this debate). This also goes against the reasoning of established measures of health information accuracy like the standards of the HONcode. Instead of having strict editorial procedures involving subject experts, Wikipedia’s culture fosters and regulates a sizable community of ardent editors who are devoted to protecting the information integrity of the site, and scholars speculate that their motivations are not altruistic. Through the diligence of active Wikipedia users and the establishment of standards, procedures, boundaries of responsibilities, and sanctions, the site has articles with accurate information. To discuss Wikipedia’s accuracy, this paper reviews the scholarly literature about Wikipedia’s accuracy in relation to health information. This discussion will focus on the the following topics: Wikipedia’s contribution to consumer health information sites on the Internet, metrics used to measure the quality of health information on the Internet, its level of accuracy, what aspects of its community culture enable it to maintain remarkably high accuracy levels, and the characteristics and aims of other collaborative websites like Wikipedia.

Through a very elegant blend of rental data from Netflix and Google Maps, the New York Times continues to improve on the infographic with a very interesting interactive feature called "A Peek Into Netflix Queues", which it published on January 10.

The Netflix maps drew me in for about 30 minutes, as I clicked from film to film, watching as the density of rentals for each was represented in shades of red within each zipcode in the Metro DC region.  For rental distributions that may confirm some common assumptions, look no further than "Frost/Nixon" and "Paul Blart: Mall Cop".

One commenter on Metafilter went so far as to say that the feature could be used by people (snobs?) as a tool for selecting neighborhoods in which to consider living.  ("Hm, the schools are good and the neighborhood is safe.  But do we really want to stand in line at the grocery store with a bunch of people who sat through ‘Bride Wars’?")

The Times has mapped 12 major metro regions.  Take a look at it here.

The Personal Democracy Forum has made its plans for this year’s technology and politics conference, which will be held in New York City on June 3-4.

This year’s conference will again touch on technological and political trends affecting governance around the world, but will be held at the CUNY Graduate Center.

As in years past, PdF has lined up an renowned list of speakers and panelists for the two-day event. Some of this year’s featured presenters include the Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington, Craig Newmark of Craigslist.org and the New York Times’ Nick Bilton.

The Bivings Group is once again thrilled to be a sponsor of the PdF conference. Last year, we set up a Twitterslurp, a tweet-aggregator set up to corral dialog happening during the conference. We’re excited to brainstorm new ways to work with the conference this year.

Here are a few videos from last year’s conference:

TBG’s Todd Zeigler and the Pickens Plan’s Heather Lauer discussion building a social action movement with the Pickens Plan:

Media experts mull hyper-local journalism in politics:

Attendees talk about bridging the digital divide:

Conference-goers can get an early registration price if they buy before Feb. 15. Click here for ticket information.

David Meerman Scott was one of the first names I came across when I started this whole social media adventure.

At the time I was writing white papers and press releases for the launch of a new web site. This was something I had never done before, and I found the whole experience rather boring. If I was bored, then what I was writing had to be even worse.

There had to be a better way of doing this.

So, doing a quick search on marketing and PR I came across something called The Gobbledygook Manifesto. Immediately the light bulb went on, and  I connected with what David was trying say  – that things had changed.

“The web has transformed the rules, and you must transform your marketing to make the most of the Web-enabled market place of ideas.”

Recently, I received a copy of David’s revised edition of, The New Rules of Marketing & PR. I don’t read a lot of books on marketing, but this is a must have.

David’s book does a great job describing the old school marketing mentality, and why it was forced to change.  He stresses that companies, organizations, and people need to become creators of content. More importantly, that the content must have value to  the audience who now have significant influence on the success of a marketing campaign.

Having read many of David’s publications, I was pleased to discover new information in this revised edition. The big value is the case studies. David provides real life examples that cover just about any facet of business and niche. Including:

• Why Zemoga gives flip cams to all their employees and customers.
• The importance of a company blog, and why companies need to interact within the blogging community.
• How CollectSPACE leveraged the importance of participating in community forums. (Notice I said participating, not promoting)
• Why Wikis shouldn’t be overlooked.
• What Conrete5 learned by providing their software for free.
• How Mignon Fogarty’s podcasts helped sell her book.
• Why groundbreaking, industry standard, and cutting-edge are words you should avoid in your press release.
• That Search Engine Optimization isn’t just about keywords.
• How the National Community Church has embraced the social web to reach thousands of people.
• The new rules for finding a job.

“You can trigger a World Wide Rave, too – just create something valuable that people want to share, and make it easy for them to do so.”

A big thank you to David Meerman Scott for sending me a copy of his book, and for including the story on how I found my job here with The Bivings Group.

The New Rules of Marketing & PR provides a solid foundation for people who are having difficulty getting their heads around the social web. From CEOs to the entrepreneurs, anyone reading this book will come away with something they didn’t know before. It’s a great read and I highly recommend snagging a copy.

One of the more significant trends in online politics and public affairs over the last few years has been the rise of Social Action Networks.

A Social Action Network is an online community that allows members to connect and organize around shared political passions.  If visiting a social network like Facebook is like walking into a bar, visiting a Social Action Network is like walking into a campaign headquarters. 

With prominent examples such as My.BarackObama.com and our own Push.Pickensplan.com, Social Action Networks are changing the way political and public affairs work is performed. 

Social Action Networks (SANs):

• Tend to focus on creating substantial change for an issue, movement or political candidate.
• Serve as a hub where people can become members of a particular movement for change.
• Have the potential to globally connect like-minded people around issues that they care about.
• Encourage members to share their view and thoughts while contributing content and building awareness for a cause.
• Encourage their members to transform their passion on an issue into action.
• Provide opportunities for members to participate both within the network and offline.
• Are transparent and allow for uncensored and open discussions to take place between members.
• Usually have specific outlined goals

These are just a few focus points on Social Action Networks. If you are thinking about starting one, be prepared to roll up your sleeves. It can be a lot of work, but it’s a terrific way to build awareness for your organization or movement. 

In the upcoming weeks we’ll address what you should put on your to do list, talk about what to avoid, discuss ways to build your Social Action Network, and provide examples of successful case studies.

In response to Tuesday morning’s 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti, the American Red Cross has been reaching out across social networks to urge aid donations.

Supporters can donate using their online form or text HAITI to 90999. Text messages will donate $10 to the relief effort. Charges will be made to the user’s cell phone bill.

While aid groups are still struggling to get an accurate account of the damage, the Associated Press reported the quake, which happened 10 miles from the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, may have caused up to 50,000 deaths.

Interesting TED talk from Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian explaining how Greenpeace’s Mister Splashy Pants became an online phenomenon.

Anil Dash has a great blog post up today entitled “Nobody Has A Million Twitter Followers.”  Dash was added to the Twitter suggested followers list in October, and as a result saw his number of followers jump from 18,000 to 300,000.  Even though Dash’s number of followers increased dramatically, the number of interactions he was having did not go up.  At 300,000, the number of retweets and replies he was getting were the same as when he was at 18,000.  His conclusion: the people who followed him via Twitter’s suggested user list aren’t truly engaged in his content to the extent that the followers he acquired organically are.  And all the folks on Twitter’s suggested user lists who have over a million followers probably only have a few hundred truly thousand engaged followers.  Dash writes:

Does that mean Twitter’s follower counts are lying? No. Instead, Twitter accounts that have over half a million followers listed actually represent (at most) a few hundred thousand people who’ve chosen to become organic followers of someone, along with millions who are passively along for the ride. Some of them are inactive users, some are spammers, some just ignore the noise of the accounts that don’t interest them, like spam in an email inbox. But they can’t count as "followers" in any meaningful sense.

I think this lesson extends to all online community building.  Having big numbers is great, but ultimately it is more important to attract people that are truly engaged in your brand, issue or cause.  Don’t chase quantity when what you really need is quality.