The story starts in Kenya in December of 2007, when there was a disputed presidential election, and in the immediate aftermath of that election, there was an outbreak of ethnic violence. And there was a lawyer in Nairobi, Ory Okolloh -- who some of you may know from her TEDTalk -- who began blogging about it on her site, Kenyan Pundit. And shortly after the election and the outbreak of violence, the government suddenly imposed a significant media blackout. And so weblogs went from being commentary as part of the media landscape to being a critical part of the media landscape in trying to understand where the violence was. And Okolloh solicited from her commenters more information about what was going on. The comments began pouring in, and Okolloh would collate them. She would post them. And she quickly said, "It's too much. I could do this all day every day and I can't keep up. There is more information about what's going on in Kenya right now than any one person can manage. If only there was a way to automate this."
Priča počinje u Keniji u prosincu 2007., kada su bili sporni predsjednički izbori. Kao izravan rezultat tih izbora došlo je do izbijanja etničkih sukoba. U Nairobiju je bila i odvjetnica, Ory Okolloh -- koju neki od vas možda znaju iz njezinog TED govora -- koja je o tome počela pisati blog na svojoj internetskoj stranici Kenyan Pundit (kenijski kritičar). I ubrzo nakon izbora i izbijanja nasilja, vlada je nametnula značajnu blokadu medija. Tako su blogovi na internetu od komentatorskog dijela medijskog krajolika postali kritični dio medijskog krajolika u pokušaju razumijevanja gdje sa nasilje događalo. I Okolloh je molila od svojih komentatora još informacija o tome što se događa. I komentari su počeli pristizati. Okolloh bi ih uspoređivala i stavljala na internet. I ubrzo je rekla: "Ovo je previše. Mogu to raditi cijeli dan, svaki dan a ne mogu držati korak. Ima više informacija o tome što se upravo događa u Keniji nego što jedna osoba može baratati. Kad bi barem postojao način da to automatiziramo."
And two programmers who read her blog held their hands up and said, "We could do that," and in 72 hours, they launched Ushahidi. Ushahidi -- the name means "witness" or "testimony" in Swahili -- is a very simple way of taking reports from the field, whether it's from the web or, critically, via mobile phones and SMS, aggregating it and putting it on a map. That's all it is, but that's all that's needed because what it does is it takes the tacit information available to the whole population -- everybody knows where the violence is, but no one person knows what everyone knows -- and it takes that tacit information and it aggregates it, and it maps it and it makes it public. And that, that maneuver called "crisis mapping," was kicked off in Kenya in January of 2008.
Dva programera koji su pročitali njezin blog javili su se i rekli: "Mi bismo to mogli učiniti." I u 72 sata, pokrenuli su Ushahidi. Ushahidi - znači "svjedok" ili "dokaz" na svahili jeziku - vrlo je jednostavan način uzimanja izvještaja s terena, bilo s interneta ili, ključno, putem mobitela i SMS-a, grupiranje izvještaja i stavljanje na kartu. I to je suština, ali to je i sve što je potrebno. Jer ono što radi je uzimanje prešutnih informacija dostupnih cijelom stanovništvu - svi znaju gdje je nasilje, samo nitko ne zna da svi znaju - i Ushahidi uzima te prešutne informacije i gomila ih, stavlja na kartu i čini javnima. I taj manevar nazvan "mapiranje krize" započeo je u Keniji u siječnju 2008.
And enough people looked at it and found it valuable enough that the programmers who created Ushahidi decided they were going to make it open source and turn it into a platform. It's since been deployed in Mexico to track electoral fraud. It's been deployed in Washington D.C. to track snow cleanup. And it's been used most famously in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake. And when you look at the map now posted on the Ushahidi front page, you can see that the number of deployments in Ushahidi has gone worldwide, all right? This went from a single idea and a single implementation in East Africa in the beginning of 2008 to a global deployment in less than three years.
I dovoljno ljudi ga je gledalo i smatralo dovoljno vrijednim da su programeri koji su kreirali Ushahidi, odlučili učiniti program javno dostupnim i pretvoriti ga u platformu. Od tada bio je upotrebljen u Meksiku za praćenje prevara na izborima. Upotrijebljen je u Washingtonu za praćenje čišćenja snijega. I slavno je upotrijebljen na Haitiju na posljedicama potresa. Ako pogledate na kartu stavljenu na prvu stranicu Ushahidija, možete vidjeti kako se upotreba Ushahidija proširila po svijetu, je li tako? To je krenulo od jedne ideje i jedne provedbe u istočnoj Africi početkom 2008. do globalne upotrebe u manje od tri godine.
Now what Okolloh did would not have been possible without digital technology. What Okolloh did would not have been possible without human generosity. And the interesting moment now, the number of environments where the social design challenge relies on both of those things being true. That is the resource that I'm talking about. I call it cognitive surplus. And it represents the ability of the world's population to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate on large, sometimes global, projects. Cognitive surplus is made up of two things. The first, obviously, is the world's free time and talents. The world has over a trillion hours a year of free time to commit to shared projects. Now, that free time existed in the 20th century, but we didn't get Ushahidi in the 20th century.
To što je Okolloh učinila, ne bi bilo moguće bez digitalne tehnologije. Što je Okolloh učinila, ne bi bilo moguće bez ljudske velikodušnosti. I zanimljiv trenutak, broj sredina s izazovima društvenog organiziranja oslanja se na istinitost obje ove činjenice. To je resurs o kojem govorim. I zovem ga misaoni višak. I predstavlja mogućnost svjetskog stanovništva da volontira, doprinosi i surađuje na velikim, ponekad svjetskim, projektima. Misaoni višak sastoji se od dvije stvari. Prvi, očito, svjetsko slobodno vrijeme i talent. Svijet ima preko bilijun sati na godinu slobodnog vremena za posvetiti zajedničkim projektima. Sad, to slobodno vrijeme postojalo je u 20. stoljeću, ali u 20. stoljeću nismo imali Ushahidi.
That's the second half of cognitive surplus. The media landscape in the 20th century was very good at helping people consume, and we got, as a result, very good at consuming. But now that we've been given media tools -- the Internet, mobile phones -- that let us do more than consume, what we're seeing is that people weren't couch potatoes because we liked to be. We were couch potatoes because that was the only opportunity given to us. We still like to consume, of course. But it turns out we also like to create, and we like to share. And it's those two things together -- ancient human motivation and the modern tools to allow that motivation to be joined up in large-scale efforts -- that are the new design resource. And using cognitive surplus, we're starting to see truly incredible experiments in scientific, literary, artistic, political efforts. Designing.
To je druga polovica misoanog viška. Medijski krajolik u 20. stoljeću bio je dobar u pomaganju ljudima da troše. I postali smo, kao rezultat toga, jako dobri u trošenju. Ali sad kad su nam dani medijski alati - internet, mobiteli - koji nam dozvoljavaju više nego samo trošiti, vidimo da mi ljudi nismo lijeni i neaktivni jer to želimo biti, već zato što je to bila jedina mogućnost koja nam je dana. I dalje volimo konzumirati, naravno. Ali ispada da također volimo i kreirati, volimo i dijeliti. I te dvije stvari zajedno - drevna ljudska motivacija i suvremeni alati koji dozvoljavaju toj motivaciji da se ujedini u trud velikih razmjera - to je resurs novog stvaranja. Korištenjem misaonog viška počinjemo vidjeti stvarno nevjerojatne pokušaje znanstvenih, literarnih, umjetničkih i političkih nastojanja. Stvaranje.
We're also getting, of course, a lot of LOLcats. LOLcats are cute pictures of cats made cuter with the addition of cute captions. And they are also part of the abundant media landscape we're getting now. This is one of the participatory -- one of the participatory models we see coming out of that, along with Ushahidi. Now I want to stipulate, as the lawyers say, that LOLcats are the stupidest possible creative act. There are other candidates of course, but LOLcats will do as a general case. But here's the thing: The stupidest possible creative act is still a creative act. Someone who has done something like this, however mediocre and throwaway, has tried something, has put something forward in public. And once they've done it, they can do it again, and they could work on getting it better.
Naravno, također dobivamo i puno smiješnih slika mačaka (LOLcats). LOLcats su slatke slike mačaka učinjene još slađima dodatkom slatkih natpisa. One su također dio učestalog medijskog krajolika koji sada dobivamo. To je jedan od modela - sudjelovanja koji nam dolaze iz njega zajedno s Ushahidijem. Sada želim postaviti za uvjet, kako odvjetnici kažu, da su LOLcats najgluplji mogući kreativni čin. Postoje i drugi kandidati, naravno, ali LOLcats će poslužiti kao generalni primjer. U ovome je stvar. I najgluplji mogući kreativni čin još uvijek je kreativni čin. Onaj tko je napravio nešto takvo, koliko god bilo osrednje i za baciti, nešto je pokušao, nešto je pokrenuo u javnosti. I jednom kad je to napravio, može to napraviti opet. I može raditi na poboljšanju toga.
There is a spectrum between mediocre work and good work, and as anybody who's worked as an artist or a creator knows, it's a spectrum you're constantly struggling to get on top of. The gap is between doing anything and doing nothing. And someone who makes a LOLcat has already crossed over that gap. Now it's tempting to want to get the Ushahidis without the LOLcats, right, to get the serious stuff without the throwaway stuff. But media abundance never works that way. Freedom to experiment means freedom to experiment with anything. Even with the sacred printing press, we got erotic novels 150 years before we got scientific journals.
Postoji spektar između osrednjeg posla i dobrog posla. I kao što svatko tko je radio kao umjetnik ili stvaratelj zna, to je spektar u kojem se stalno borite da stignete na vrh. Procjep je između činjenja nečega i nečinjenja ničega. I onaj tko radi LOLcats već je prešao taj procjep. Sad, primamljivo je željeti doći do Ushahidija bez LOLcats, dobiti ozbiljne stvari bez stvari za baciti. Ali medijsko izobilje nikad ne radi na taj način. Sloboda eksperimentiranja znači slobodu eksperimentiranja s bilo čime. Čak i sa svetim tiskom, imali smo erotske priče 150 godina prije nego što smo dobili znanstvene časopise.
So before I talk about what is, I think, the critical difference between LOLcats and Ushahidi, I want to talk about their shared source. And that source is design for generosity. It is one of the curiosities of our historical era that even as cognitive surplus is becoming a resource we can design around, social sciences are also starting to explain how important our intrinsic motivations are to us, how much we do things because we like to do them rather than because our boss told us to do them, or because we're being paid to do them.
Prije nego popričamo koja je, po mom mišljenju, glavna razlika između LOLcats i Ushahidi, želim pričati o njihovom zajedničkom izvorištu. A to izvorište je stvaranje iz velikodušnosti. Jedna od zanimljivosti naše povijesne ere je da kako misaoni višak postaje resurs oko kojeg možemo stvarati, društvene znanosti počinju shvaćati koliko su nam važne naše unutarnje motivacije, koliko puno radimo stvari zato što ih volimo raditi a ne zato što nam je šef rekao da ih napravimo, ili zato što smo za to plaćeni.
This is a graph from a paper by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini, who set out to test, at the beginning of this decade, what they called "deterrence theory." And deterrence theory is a very simple theory of human behavior: If you want somebody to do less of something, add a punishment and they'll do less of it. Simple, straightforward, commonsensical -- also, largely untested. And so they went and studied 10 daycare centers in Haifa, Israel. They studied those daycare centers at the time of highest tension, which is pick-up time. At pick-up time the teachers, who have been with your children all day, would like you to be there at the appointed hour to take your children back. Meanwhile, the parents -- perhaps a little busy at work, running late, running errands -- want a little slack to pick the kids up late.
Ovo je grafikon iz članka Urija Gneezyja i Alda Rustichinija koji su išli testirati, početkom ovog desetljeća, ono što su zvali "teorijom zastrašivanja." A teorija zastrašivanja vrlo je jednostavno teorija ljudskog ponašanja. Ako želite da netko manje radi nešto, uvedite kaznu i radit će manje toga. Jednostavno, otvoreno, zdravorazumski, i uglavnom neispitano. Krenuli su proučavati 10 dječjih vrtića u Haifi, Izrael. I proučavali su te vrtiće u vrijeme najveće napetosti koje je vrijeme dolaska roditelja po djecu. U vrijeme dolaska odgajatelji, koji su bili s vašom djecom cijeli dan, htjeli bi da dođete u dogovoreni sat da uzmete djecu nazad. U međuvremenu, roditelji - vjerojatno malo prezauzeti na poslu, kasne, obavljajući neke posliće - žele da im se tolerira malo kašnjenje.
So Gneezy and Rustichini said, "How many instances of late pick-ups are there at these 10 daycare centers?" Now they saw -- and this is what the graph is, these are the number of weeks and these are the number of late arrivals -- that there were between six and 10 instances of late pick-ups on average in these 10 daycare centers. So they divided the daycare centers into two groups. The white group there is the control group; they change nothing. But the group of daycare centers represented by the black line, they said, "We are changing this bargain as of right now. If you pick your kid up more than 10 minutes late, we're going to add a 10 shekel fine to your bill. Boom. No ifs, ands or buts."
Gneezy i Rustichini su se tad zapitali, "Koliko ima slučajeva kašnjenja roditelja u ovih 10 vrtića?" Vidjeli su - kao što ovaj graf pokazuje, ovdje je broj tjedana a ovo je broj kašnjenja roditelja - da ima između šest i 10 slučajeva kašnjenja roditelja u prosjeku u ovih 10 vrtića. Tako su podijelili vrtiće u dvije grupe. Ova bijela grupa je kontrolna grupa; tu nisu ništa mijenjali. A grupi vrtića prikazanih crnom crtom, rekli su: "Mijenjamo pogodbu istog trena. Ako zakasnite po svoje dijete više od 10 minuta, dodat ćemo 10 šekela kazne na vaš račun. Bum. Bez ikakvih ako i ali."
And the minute they did that, the behavior in those daycare centers changed. Late pick-ups went up every week for the next four weeks until they topped out at triple the pre-fine average, and then they fluctuated at between double and triple the pre-fine average for the life of the fine. And you can see immediately what happened, right? The fine broke the culture of the daycare center. By adding a fine, what they did was communicate to the parents that their entire debt to the teachers had been discharged with the payment of 10 shekels, and that there was no residue of guilt or social concern that the parents owed the teachers. And so the parents, quite sensibly, said, "10 shekels to pick my kid up late? What could be bad?" (Laughter)
I istog trena kad su to učinili, ponašanje se u tim vrtićima promijenilo. Broj kasnih dolazaka je rastao svaki tjedan iduća četiri tjedna sve dok nije dosegao vrhunac tri puta veći od prosjeka prije kazni, i nakon toga se kretao između dvostruke i trostruke vrijednosti prosjeka prije uvođenja kazni dokle god je kazna trajala. I odmah možete vidjeti što se dogodilo, jel tako? Kazna je ukinula kulturu dječjeg vrtića. Uvođenjem kazne, poručili su roditeljima da je sav njihov dug odgajateljima otpušten plaćanjem 10 šekela, te da nema nikakvog ostatka krivnje ili društvene brige koju su roditelji dugovali odgajateljima. I tako su roditelji, prilično razumno rekli: "10 šekela da kasnije dođem po dijete? Što može biti loše? (Smijeh)
The explanation of human behavior that we inherited in the 20th century was that we are all rational, self-maximizing actors, and in that explanation -- the daycare center had no contract -- should have been operating without any constraints. But that's not right. They were operating with social constraints rather than contractual ones. And critically, the social constraints created a culture that was more generous than the contractual constraints did. So Gneezy and Rustichini run this experiment for a dozen weeks -- run the fine for a dozen weeks -- and then they say, "Okay, that's it. All done; fine." And then a really interesting thing happens: Nothing changes. The culture that got broken by the fine stayed broken when the fine was removed. Not only are economic motivations and intrinsic motivations incompatible, that incompatibility can persist over long periods. So the trick in designing these kinds of situations is to understand where you're relying on the economic part of the bargain -- as with the parents paying the teachers -- and when you're relying on the social part of the bargain, when you're really designing for generosity.
Objašnjenje ljudskog ponašanja koje smo naslijedili u 20-tom stoljeću bilo je da smo racionalni, sebični glumci. I u tom objašnjenju - dječji vrtić nije imao ugovor - i trebao bi raditi bez ograničenja. No to nije u redu. Oni rade s društvenim ograničenjima a ne s ugovornim. I ključno, društvena ograničenja kreirala su kulturu koja je bila velikodušnija nego što su to ugovorna ograničenja. Gneezy i Rustichini proveli su ovaj pokus 12 tjedana - kazna je postojala 12 tjedana - i onda su rekli: "Ok, to je gotovo. Sve u redu." I zaista zanimljiva stvar se dogodila. Ništa se nije promijenilo. Kultura koja se slomila pod kaznom ostala je slomljena i kad je kazna povučena. Ne samo da su ekonomska motivacija i intrinzička motivacija neuskladive, ta neuskladivost može ostati dulje vrijeme. Tako je trik u stvaranju ovih vrsta situacija razumjeti gdje se oslanjate na ekonomski dio pogodbe - kao što su roditelji plaćali odgajateljima - a kad se oslanjate na društveni dio pogodbe, kada zaista stvarate iz velikodušnosti.
This brings me back to the LOLcats and to Ushahidi. This is, I think, the range that matters. Both of these rely on cognitive surplus. Both of these design for the assumption that people like to create and we want to share. Here is the critical difference between these: LOLcats is communal value. It's value created by the participants for each other. Communal value on the networks we have is everywhere -- every time you see a large aggregate of shared, publicly available data, whether it's photos on Flickr or videos on Youtube or whatever. This is good. I like LOLcats as much as the next guy, maybe a little more even, but this is also a largely solved problem. I have a hard time envisioning a future in which someone is saying, "Where, oh where, can I find a picture of a cute cat?"
To me vraća na LOLcats i na Ushahidi. To je, mislim, smisleni raspon. Oba se oslanjaju na misaoni višak. Oba stvaraju s pretpostavkom da ljudi vole stvarati i da volimo dijeliti. Ovo je ključna razlika između toga dvoga. LOLcats su zajednička vrijednost. To je vrijednost stvorena od strane sudionika za svakog od njih. Zajednička vrijednost na našim mrežama je posvuda. Svaki put kad vidite veliku gomilu dijeljenih, javno dostupnih podataka, bilo slika na Flickru ili video zapisa na Youtubeu ili što već. To je dobro. Ja volim LOLcats isto kao i drugi, možda čak i malo više. No ovo je također gotovo posve riješen problem. Teško si mogu zamisliti budućnost u kojoj netko kaže: "Gdje, o gdje, mogu naći sliku slatke mačke?"
Ushahidi, by contrast, is civic value. It's value created by the participants but enjoyed by society as a whole. The goals set out by Ushahidi are not just to make life better for the participants, but to make life better for everyone in the society in which Ushahidi is operating. And that kind of civic value is not just a side effect of opening up to human motivation. It really is going to be a side effect of what we, collectively, make of these kinds of efforts. There are a trillion hours a year of participatory value up for grabs. That will be true year-in and year-out. The number of people who are going to be able to participate in these kinds of projects is going to grow, and we can see that organizations designed around a culture of generosity can achieve incredible effects without an enormous amount of contractual overhead -- a very different model than our default model for large-scale group action in the 20th century.
Ushahidi je, nasuprot tome, građanska vrijednost. Njegovu vrijednost stvaraju sudionici, a uživa je društvo u cijelosti. Ciljevi koje je postavio Ushahidi nisu samo poboljšati život sudionicima, već poboljšati život svima u društvu u kojem Ushahidi djeluje. A ta vrsta građanske vrijednosti nije samo nuspojava otvaranja ljudskoj motivaciji. To će stvarno biti nuspojava onoga što, zajedno, učinimo od tog truda. Imamo bilijun sati na godinu sudioničke vrijednosti na raspolaganju. To je stvarni dobitak i utrošak po godini. Broj ljudi koji će biti u mogućnosti da sudjeluju u ovakvim projektima, rasti će. A mi ćemo vidjeti da organizacije stvorene oko kulture velikodušnosti mogu doseći nevjerojatne učinke s ogromnom količinom ugovorne nadogradnje. Posve drugačiji model od našeg uobičajenog modela za pokret velikih grupa u 20. stoljeću.
What's going to make the difference here is what Dean Kamen said, the inventor and entrepreneur. Kamen said, "Free cultures get what they celebrate." We've got a choice before us. We've got this trillion hours a year. We can use it to crack each other up, and we're going to do that. That, we get for free. But we can also celebrate and support and reward the people trying to use cognitive surplus to create civic value. And to the degree we're going to do that, to the degree we're able to do that, we'll be able to change society.
Što će činiti razliku jest ono što je Dean Kamen rekao, izumitelj i poduzetnik. Kamen je rekao: "Slobodne kulture dobiju ono što slave." Imamo izbor pred nama. Imamo bilijun sati na godinu. Možemo ih koristiti da jedni druge nasmijavamo, i to ćemo i raditi. To dobijemo besplatno. Ali također možemo slaviti, poticati i nagrađivati ljude koji pokušavaju upotrijebiti misaoni višak za stvaranje građanske vrijednosti. Koliko ćemo to raditi, koliko ćemo biti sposobni to raditi, toliko ćemo biti sposobni mijenjati društvo.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.