Wikipedia, one of the Web's most valuable resources, is based on thousands of volunteers. Can progressives make that same power of networked volunteers work for us?
One of the most remarkable, unexpected developments of the Internet has been the explosive growth of Wikipedia. At first glance, the Wikipedia concept -- that thousands upon thousands of volunteers working with little central supervision can create a huge databank of accurate information -- seems untenable. And yet the Wikipedia bumblebee flies anyway. While not flawless, Wikipedia has become an invaluable resource, with detailed articles on everything from arithmetic to geodesy to the movie "Zoolander."
Can progressives make this power of networked volunteers work for us? Some are already trying. Last year, Josh Marshall's
TalkingPointsMemo.com asked the site's readers to in turn ask their members of Congress, on the record: Do you support Bush's plans to privatize Social Security? A regular progressive organization would have needed a large, expensive staff to make the thousands of necessary calls -- if, as non-constituents, they could have gotten responses at all. But by working together in a mass electronic barn-raising, Marshall's thousands of readers got this critical information quickly and easily. Moreover, they had fun doing it and became more loyal to the site in the process.
A similar dynamic may be creating new forms of journalism. Jay Rosen's
NewAssignment.Net hopes to cultivate a large pool of volunteers able to, for instance, check for voting irregularities in every precinct in America. And Trevor Paglen and A.C. Thompson, the authors of Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, worked with a network of amateur plane spotters to track secret flights around the world. As Paglen recently said, "When the plane-spotter community and journalists came together, it became one of the few ways to see the outlines of this program."
However, what progressives have done little of until now is sit down and consider this issue in a systematic way -- and then take sustained action on projects that demonstrate the full potential of networked volunteers. Netcentric Campaigns (of which Martin Kearns is director) is now beginning this process with the site
MediaVolunteer.org. Our conclusions and plans are these:
1. Progressives should think creatively about the potential of current technology to build power.
Politics, of course, usually boils down to the many versus the few. The conservative movement has always been able to raise large amounts of money from a relatively small number of sources. This money translates in turn into a relatively small number of people -- politicians, lobbyists, think tank denizens, PR experts -- paid to spend large amounts of time advancing the conservative project.
By contrast, we have the numbers on our side, but not many multimillionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife. What the web has done is allow progressives to start leveling the monetary playing field, by aggregating small donations from many sources.
This is an extremely encouraging development. But what may be just as important is to find ways to advance progressive goals by aggregating many small donations of time.
2. Networks of volunteers are particularly well-suited to gathering information.
Information is surprisingly "expensive" -- that is, gathering accurate data requires enormous amounts of time and effort. Until now, this expense has translated into a high dollar-and-cent cost.
For instance, as anyone who's ever done press for progressive organizations knows, huge amounts of energy are required to keep track of working reporters and producers. Or rather, trying to keep track, as it's almost impossible. And while there are commercial, national media directories, subscriptions might cost $10,000, beyond the reach of all but the best funded. Thus, everyone doing progressive PR is forced to reinvent the wheel separately across the country on a daily basis.
But many hands make light work. If a database requires 25,000 hours of effort, it could be produced by a staff of 13, working fulltime for a year -- or 125,000 volunteers working for 12 minutes each.
This type of volunteering also holds special promise for.........
http://www.alternet.org/story/47659/
