Sydenham web sites

[leenewham]

And I can imagine BBW sharpening his sword!



Oh...dribble...

[Tim Lund]

Just left a message on Sean's phone suggesting 12th or 13th, and asking what time of day is preferable. I'd prefer lunch time, but that's because I'm not one to get through too many crates.

[paultreacy]

If there's to be any settling of matters with pistols, please wait until I get me cameras. Then I could post the pictures on yet another Sydenham blog at http://sydenhamshots.blogspot.com to share with the community.

My issue with this forum, which I love dearly by the way, is it's limitations in terms of interaction. Sure, it's easy to embed photos and such like, but it's not easy to embed videos, for example. If it was it would be great for sharing all sorts of stuff.

I do like it as it is but it could be so much better. I have no suggestions, however, as I'm no expert. I learn whatever code is needed to post, embed and link stuff but that's it.

I'm excited that innovations are on the way, however.

Off now to explore these other Sydenham blogs and sites mentioned.

Paul Treacy.

[paultreacy]

Obviously, I'm playing catch up here and now realize that this discussion took place months ago. What was the outcome of the pistol incident?

[Tim Lund]

Paul - pistols were never drawn, let alone fired.

But let's get back to what this is really about - so here I'm editing out / adapting references to Sean in the original quote

The basic point of disagreement ... is about whether to do our would-be good for the community, it is better to work with this established forum or not. [There are several] excellent [contributors of local web material]. The point of this thread is ... to get people thinking about how to get better local web sites.

This morning I've put up two threads which aim to publicise material which has appeared recently on the new Sydenham Society Wordpress site, referring to a 'departed friend', e.g. nasaroc, late of this parish, but now happier to be putting up material there.

In the quest for better local web sites, the obvious structural difference between these is that anyone can contribute and comment here - subject to Admin's fairly light touch moderation - while those who contribute to the SydSoc site are limited in number, not named, and no comments are allowed. Personally I think this ends up as the better site overall, but it cannot be denied that nasaroc is putting up material which makes it worth visiting the SydSoc site - and worth my time or anyone else's flagging up here.

Nasaroc's feeling is that allowing open comments leads to serious discussion being diverted into silliness - such as perhaps discussions of pistol duels in this very thread. Allowing anyone to start a thread also opens the Forum to quite unpleasant attacks on individuals or businesses - and I am well aware that my starting this thread was not exactly kind towards Sean - and I am sorry for this. On the other hand, I do think it makes it the Forum more interesting, and more useful - but in fact, the combination of the two sites - and any other local sites - means the total is better than any individual site.

[bigbadwolf]

Right, I think it's time I redressed the balance that supposedly drove nasaroc away.

Warning: long incoming post.

Tim,

After reading through your comments, I think that it's time to announce my position on the Sydenham websites.

Ignore them; and let's expand. As much as I admire admin and his band of moderators for their hard work over the years, I can't help but think we're restricting ourselves by just focusing on the interests of Sydenham. Basically, we need a borough-wide message board that will give not only the borough a louder voice, but the individual wards too. Think of it as pooling our resources, because if we give the ward of Lee Green a voice under the umbrella of an independently ran, borough-wide message board, then hopefully the interests of Sydenham and other wards will attract their attention; guerrilla campaigning, if you will.

But before we move on from the planning stages, allow me to address some key points.

But before I start, let me say this: I have neither the time, patience or expertise to run such a message board. But if anyone wants to act on my advice, and that's all it is, then please, go ahead.

1) Marketing the board

To attract sufficient traffic to make the board interesting, you would need to target your desired audience. Allow me to be frank, you don't want such a board clogged-up by the sort of purile drivel I post on here. No, you need more Tim Lund's and Lee Newham's if you want to make a real success. Of course it should be available to everyone, but for it to follow a reasonably objective path, you'll need to establish contacts, in person, with the sort of people you want to attract to the board. Approach local campaign groups and make them aware of a new message board that will soon be going online where, within reason, they can voice their agenda without censor. Approach Goldsmiths University's political and sociology departments with a view to contributing and adding theoretical arguments; which will also be of enormous benefit to their students if they wish to take-part in the boards political discussions. By approaching these types of people, you'll not only be setting an unspoken trend with regards to how people behave, but you'll also be spreading your online presense by word of mouth. Basically, approach anyone, in person, who you think will make a positive and informed impact/contribution to what is mutually hoped will be a borough-wide success. I know that this will take a lot of time and energy, but I think you need to rely on more than spamming local inboxes.

2) Impact on local authority

To retain interest, your users have to feel confident that their comments, arguments and campaigns are being acknowledged by the local council. This may require some legal advise before approaching your local council in terms of them taking too much of an interest and possibly provoking litigation as aresult of contentious content on your board that for you will mean it flourishes, but could cause headaches for local government. But as I said before, I have no experience of these thing. You could, however, make yourself known by proxy. That is by requesting that campaign groups that are active on your message board make your presence known or hint at it during their campaigns and protests.

3) Moderation

Drawing on a much larger volume of contributers will require perhaps a broader form of online governance, but I think the policy of this board will be more than enough to keep people under control without stifling free speech.


I'm sure that there's loads of other stuff I've missed-out, but, without wishing to come across as overly self important, perhaps this will be something that you and admin may wish to discuss over your coffee mornings; as I'm sure, with your combined local contacts and I.T expertise, it's something you and admin could expand on.


P.s. Nasaroc can puff away all he likes on the Syd Soc website, but if people can't reply, they'll eventually loose interest.

[Tim Lund]

OK - here's something interesting - Liz Dart, Head of Community & Neighbourhood Development, London Borough of Lewisham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 3hJsJjoR5g

Filmed by Networked Neighbourhoods, the organisation behind the 'unconference' I dragged Admin along to earlier this year.

Some quotes about sites such as this, to remember the next time an officer, Councillor, or any one else suggests they don't matter:

Very cost effective

They can be critical - you have to take that!

Step in, take part, but don't try to control, because you can't!

Re BBW's long post - well, thanks for the personal endorsement. You raise lots of issues, some of which Admin, I and others have already thought about a fair bit. It was what you wrote about 'Impact on local authority' that started me following a few links, which led me to the Liz Dart video I posted above.

OK - "You raise lots of issues" sounds like Yes Minister speak for "I think you're talking complete rubbish" so let me be more precise - I think it's about 50/50 between interesting and impractical. But that's just my view, and if I were to go into details, it really would take too long. And maybe other people have something to say - maybe, given what she says, Liz Dart herself, or one of our local Councillors?

[bigbadwolf]

Well, it seems that Liz Dart is echoing what I said to admin during the summer with regards to the successful running of local media:

Admin wrote:

I will take issue with you on that BBW. Blogs are essentially one person setting an agenda to which others are allowed to respond provided they stay within the OP's permitted views.

To which I replied:

Yes, I know that. As well as anyone else who chooses to read a blog. They know before they even take an interest that although they can comment on the content, they're at the mercy of the author with regards to what they read. Perhaps Lewisham council should rename their "forum" and call it Lewisham councils' blog. Because esentially, that's what it is.

But don't get me wrong. I fully understand why Lewisham council have taken such precautionary measures. If it were a free-for-all whereby users could create their own topics of discussion, the site would no doubt be bogged down with complaints from anything to refused planning permission to the lack of available schools in the borough. Which would then take up all of Lewishams time addressing these complaints instead of pursuing the sites' original purpose: to promote and voice the good and productive policies the council have embarked upon.

I think what I'm trying to say, and what I'm sure yourself and Lewisham know, is that to run a successful, local message board the owner/admin must be impartial and not be under constant, official scrutiny. Aswell as being free - to a great extent - of operating under the ever present threat of litigation.

All in all, a borough wide message board is a fantastic idea. And one I'd be genuinely enthusiastic about taking part in. But in my opinion, for it to flourish, it shouldn't be run by the local authority.

Link: http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... 84&start=0


Incidentally,

In the YouTube link you've attached, it lists Ms Dart as "Head of Community and Neighbourhood at the London Borough of Lewisham", but she's listed at Creative Lewisham, with an official Lewisham Council email address as: "Head of Arts & Entertainment."

Link: http://www.creativelewisham.org/contacts.htm

Now, as fellow Private Eye subcribers, you and I are notoriously familiar with local authority officials presiding over a whole range of groups and committees, but in this case, there's room for conflict over who she's primarily responsible for. Given the officious sounding titles she's accredited with in both links, wouldn't you say?

Though I hasten to add that there are no dates attached to when the information in either link was published.

[Tim Lund]

BBW - I was wondering about Liz's role as well, but I guessed it was just that she'd moved on to higher things. As to a borough-wide board - well, what you write about moderation I agree with 100%, but I don't actually think the borough is the natural unit. About a year after I first got involved in local activism, when living in Peckham, I noticed I started to think of myself as living in Southwark, and so joining a self referential circle which included Councillors and officers, but relatively few ordinary people. So that's part of what you wrote that I think impractical; for a Forum to work, you need that large majority of people who just browse to feel that, if they want, they could come on and make a contribution on say, fish and chip shops. A borough wide Forum would be just for policy wonks, and would be very boring.

[admin]

Now there must be a PhD on offer to someone who researches the success of geographic based forums. At least it would stop me pontificating on anecdotal evidence. But in its absence - here goes:

"There is a sweetspot for community forums - and its around 50,000 populations"

That's a bit bigger than STF but much smaller than Lewisham. There are two conflicting criteria.

1) The more population, the more people there are to post and the diversity of subject makes it more attractive to read and post further.

2) The more population, the fewer the links between the posters and hence lack of interest in stuff that is not local to them.

Hence running a forum in a smaller area than Sydenham is hard. There's not enough people to post. At best you get a few regulars who dominate and deter others. Even we are not immune to that threat.

Running a citywide forum is just as hard. The fact there is no "London Forum" or "Birmingham Forum" in the same way as we have in Crystal Palace, Sydenham or Forest Hill should be telling. Big forums (and there are many) are tied to a niche subject/interest/demographic. Very rarely to a geographic.

Which is why there is no Lewisham Community Forum. Because there is no readily identifiable Lewisham Community. Lewisham is a construct limited to who empties your bins for most of us. I know - I ran/run a Lewisham Forum.

It would be good if forum/community websites in Lewisham did work together over issues common to us (like getting a good Planning Alert system) but there is something about the guys (yes always guys) who run these sites. Nice guys but seldom successful at networking (without a bit of Cat 5 wire that is).

Goldsmiths have a project to link everybody on the Overground Line into an online community. Our local museums already have an Overground based website. Ever heard of it? Is it something you can identify with?

I'm not quivering in my boots over that. Instead a revived SydSoc site and some good local blogs that get updated provide the necessary competition for your online eyes. Hopefully you will come back here with your great/not so great comments.

Cos (almost) free speech is what we try to do best. And there is no competition until I launch SydiLeaks

Admin