What Did ClappingTrees Say at Nexus 2007?
26 Mar 2007 (Mon)
JUST WHAT DID I SAY at Nexus 2007, the special Web 2.0 event last Saturday? A quick look at the writeups of several bloggers suggests that different people heard and saw different things.
First, Benjamin Koe, in Almost social media (Nexus 2007), had been most flattering:
“Although the speaker line up included Nathan Torkington (O’Reilly) and Cory Ondrejka (Linden Labs), I learned the most from a fellow Singaporean: the blogger known as ClappingTrees…
“This happened in a panel discussion hosted by Kevin which included Kathy Teo (CNET Asia), Jennifer Lewis (STOMP), James Seng (Tomorrow.SG). As the discussions went on about crowdsourcing the media, I began to wonder why the distributed nature of free content creation was embraced, but gatekeeping was left to a bunch of editors… Then came ClappingTrees to the mic and spoke the words that were on my mind.
“The question (paraphrased) was basically: In a world of social gatekeeping (think digg), why do the above crowdsourcing media qualify as gatekeepers of content that’s not even theirs?“
NEXT, THREE BLOGGERS who mentioned me (that I know of) had been quite factual in their reporting. For example,
Vanessa wrote:
“Question time. Josephine reminds us of Sim Wong Hoo’s old article on Singapore’s no U-turn policy, while in the US everyone can do a U-turn unless they’re told otherwise (it’s an allusion to our over-reliance on rules to limit what people can do). James responds that attempts in Singapore to form a Digg-like community has yet to really take off.
This is the point where Uzyn from Ping.sg shows himself and we give him a round of applause.”
DK wrote:
“Uzyn stole the stage for 5 minutes halfway thru the panel. It started with Clappingtree talking about tomorrow.sg’s way of selecting article and how difficult it was for bloggers to gain readership. She mentioned about ping.sg which suddenly drew lots of attention among the audience.”
Marina (a.k.a. Rinaz) wrote:
“In the middle of the session, a lady from the floor, Clappingtree, asked the panelists on why there should be a censorship. She reasonsed that everyone, as long as they are within social values, should have a voice and a chance to be heard. She mentioned that ping.sg, a blog aggregator was a site where every blog had an equal chance of being read.
“After the session, Uzyn, creator of ping.sg got hounded by fans.”
Then surprise of surprises… reading the writeup of Kevin Lim (the moderator of the session) gave me a shock and an aftershock. Initially, he wrote (the same thing) in three separate blogs on his site:
“James took the opportunity to explain how news gets published on Tomorrow.sg. He considers Tomorrow.sg as a form of human news filter, where they depend on a diverse set of editors to create balanced gatekeeping. From geeks to celebrities, conservatives to liberals, tomorrow.sg has them all. Still, this has never been enough for some bloggers (JK> Here is a link to my blog. And wow! I’ve become “some bloggers”), and tomorrow.sg has constantly come under fire for being biased given their set of editors. This issue has been beaten to death years ago, and there are always ways to get around this.”
Later, he revised this writeup in one of the blogs as follows:
“James took the opportunity to explain how news gets published on Tomorrow.sg. He considers Tomorrow.sg as a form of human news filter, where they depend on a diverse set of editors to create balanced gatekeeping. From geeks to celebrities, conservatives to liberals, tomorrow.sg has them all. Still, this has never been enough for some bloggers. Some time ago, I witnessed that the power law was developing in the Singapore blogosphere, and it was Clappingtrees (aka JK) who revitalized this idea at the panel’s Q&A, by *arguing* that popular blog aggregators such as Tomorrow.sg had *biased editors*. I do feel that this issue has been beaten to death years ago and that the more productive route would be to try new ways of getting around this.” (Note: Asterisks added by me.)
Come, come, all of you who were there and listening to me. Tell me what did I say?
Afternote 30-03-2007: Just found CoolInsights’ comments on what I said.
- Uzyn, the next “Kevin Rose”?
- Alexa Ranks Ping.sg Above Tomorrow.sg!
- Ethical Social Media Marketing
- Top Blogs in China, Malaysia & Philippines
- Academia more Social Media-Savvy than Businesses
- A video guide to the Ping.sg celebration - by an absentee!
- Top posts in Ping.sg & Tomorrow.sg - one year later
Posted by J.K. in *Roundups, Asia, Events, Singapore, Social Media, Technology | |
March 26th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Sorry if you found it offensive. I’d love to get the facts right. Just let me know and I can fix it. I had plenty going on so I couldn’t be sure about everything. It’s a risk I take for blogging about what someone actually said.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:22 am
To your benefit, I’ve added a link here from the offending post so that we can get some clarification on what you said.
Once again, I meant no offense to you and I did immediately respond to your hint on the ping.sg shoutbox to change the post accordingly (thus the multiple blog changes).
Rather than to delete it, I felt that it would have been more responsible to try and highlight what everyone said. Where I fail to, the typical practice would be for the latter to contact me privately for rectification, where I would then give an acknowledgment of the matter on the blog.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Great for speaking up! Through you, I’m hooked onto ping.sg. I got my whole blogosphere here!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I don’t see anything wrong with the comments. Maybe you read too much into the word ‘Arguing’
March 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Kevin, it’s true that there’s a risk writing about people. However, my first shock at your use of “some bloggers” was not only because of the use of the words, but also because you used “some bloggers” in two places. The first instance was a little suggestive:
The second instance was quoted above. Both instances of “some bloggers” are still there in your Singapura version. (btw, Kevin, have I met you yet?)
After the revision of the second instance, I was more startled because at no time, did I use the word “biased” during the session to describe the Tomorrow.sg editors. I’ve explained that I support Tomorrow.sg too by having a link from my blog to it.
DK, there is a great difference between challenging the mechanism versus accusing the people of biasedness.
I have to clarify this point.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
i agreed with what you said at that panel and in fact you voiced out all that was in my mind on why we need editors to filter the public’s content. In no way did i think you insinuate that their (tmrw.sg and stomp)’s editing was biased but just that you felt an “all-comer” approach and digg-style social news site would be a truer reflection of citizen journalism (which was the discussion thread at that time).
I guess some had miscontrued your question but I dun think Kevin in using the word “arguing” meant it in an offensive way but more in the context of an “intellectual discourse” =)
March 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
@Bjorn: I agree. The word “arguing” alone is innocuous. However, when used together with “that popular blog aggregators such as Tomorrow.sg had biased editors”… the implications are great.
@Kevin: It is true that “the typical practice would be for the latter to contact [the party concerned] privately for rectification”. Will keep this in mind the next time.
For the record though, I did give you a clear hint in the ping.sg shoutbox by entering “Some bloggers would like to chat with you”. You took it at once, acknowledged that “it seems negatory…” and made some changes (removing the first and second instances of “some bloggers”) to the post in your main blog. However, your Singapura blog has remained unchanged. Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve even met you though I saw you on the panel from afar.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
1. Bjorn made a clear abstract of what J.K. was trying to say. I’ll change it accordingly: on “why we need editors to filter the public’s content.”
2. The Singapura blog was more of my experiment in aggregating blog content. It naturally picked up the earlier edition of my post and not the revised one. I don’t always pay attention to it and I’ve deleted it now that you’ve brought it to everyone’s attention. There is no need for
3. I blogged about this as I wanted to help give you a voice. Though I have made a mistake in quoting you, instead of privately seeking recourse with me, you’ve done me harm by implicating my intent. Once again, my only intention is to give fair coverage, but even that has proven to be difficult with you.
Don’t worry, I will edit the quote to more accurately reflect your view. I hope the community at large will grant their wisdom on this and speak up for either of us.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Kevin, you wanted to give me a voice by calling me “some bloggers”?
I have made NO allusion to your intention(s). I merely cited facts and wrote about my reactions upon reading what you have written.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
hoho so clapping trees is the one that i mention on my blog…
sorry i quite new to the online world…but is something like this such a big deal? i dun seem to find anything wrong about what kelvin wrote. i too feel that while the question is a good valid one, the way you state your points, i think folks at tomorrow.sg defintely dun feel the love
March 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Here’s a summary of things I’ve tried to do:
1. I’ve apologized right from the start.
2. I’ve made repeated edits to the post to be more accurate in quoting you.
3. The duplicate post on Singapura.org was a technical issue, not something I intentionally cross-posted. It has since been removed.
4. I’ve added an admission of error on the offending line on my blog.
For those who know me, I’m a pretty down to earth guy and I wouldn’t harm a soul. I made a human error, admitted to it and fixed it. Even in the world of professional journalism, despite all attempts, mistakes do happen.
Perhaps I’m a stranger to the ping.sg community, but still, I’m amazed that no one here has come forth to speak out for me.
Won’t anyone help to mediate?
March 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I’ve read Kevin’s entries and seriously I don’t think he had any ill intention against you. I can understand how Kevin came about using the term “some bloggers”. The issue you raised at Nexus is a common recurring feedback to tomorrow.sg. I’m among the “some bloggers”. I guess Kevin was just trying to generalise and you happened to represent “us” (which may not be your intention) when you mentioned the recurring feedback about tomorrow.sg.
Kevin may have misconcluded your message as he has mixed up potentially a general feel of tomorrow.sg that some bloggers feel that the editorial team may be biased.
Other bloggers are not challenging the mechanism; they are really in the opinion that they are biased.
So it is understandable how Kevin may have misconstrued your meaning.
All in all, I really do think that it was an honest misunderstanding, with no malice, no ill-intention.
Human speech and writing is not the best form of communication. Meanings and words always get misunderstood. But speech and writing is the only way (no matter how flawed) we have at the moment. Until the day we can communicate telepathically, we just have to live with the flaws.
I have a feeling that my comment here may be misunderstood. :p
March 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
true wat. tomorrow.sg has biased editors. i’m one of them
March 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Cobalt P, I think you’ve put the whole thing into quite a good perspective.
Tinkertailor, I’m surprised to hear this from one of the editors. Perhaps you are joking, being honest…
For a while, I didn’t know how to respond to a statement like this.
Nevertheless, it’s immaterial to me whether Tomorrow.sg editors are biased or not in reality. Or whether one or most of the editors don’t mind being called “biased”. I have had enough encounters where I challenged the mechanism and people thought that I was attacking them. So long as I didn’t say that (”biased ediors”), I need to clarify this.
Afternote 2007-03-27: This issue has been settled as of yesterday. Kevin and I have made peace.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Just found Comments 10 (Astroboy) and 11 (Kevin) in my moderation queue. Must have overlooked them earlier. So, they are finally appearing now.
Astroboy, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion and I to mine. What did you say you wrote about me?! Aha! Hidden agenda. Hmmm… I could sue you for defamation or laugh at your lack of logic. I certainly wouldn’t give your blog post a link.
I can explain though the way I spoke that day — perhaps with some annoyance. I was feeling angry NOT at tomorrow.sg or anyone on the panel (afterall, I don’t know any one of them or you personally), but rather that SOMEONE STOLE MY OPTICAL MOUSE from my paper bag in the auditorium just an hour ago. Chern Jie and Shu Yuen from The Digital Movement can verify this.
Finally, to all, am I really supposed to approach in secret people who blogged negatively about me in public? Shouldn’t they approach me first before they write something negative about me?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Glad to see that things have taken a sweet turn. I find that the SIngapore blogosphere always fascinates me to no end, which is probably why I am so damn addicted to blogging!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
what widgets do you have active i really like the way your theme is setup