Tracking New Web 2.0 Apps
Very few days go by when someone doesn't email me notice of a new web tool to try. Most of them either launch too early and don't quite work, or they are simply a clone of another tool that I already use and enjoy.
Here's a roundup of four applications that have (mostly) worked the bugs out. And they all might inform what we're doing in journalism - see explanations below.
The site purports to "search for and compare the opinion of any person or organization in the world on any issue." Sure enough, this morning, just after news broke about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, whereistand had changed its homepage to the topic "Should the U.S. take military action in Pakistan" and offered 16 opinions from people and publications such as the Washington Post, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Shaukat Aziz, the New York Post and others.
The site republishes reports from newspapers and other sources - content is fed by registered members who ultimately become editors, bloggers and researchers. It's a sort of Wikipedia-USAToday.com interactive chart mashup of sorts. I don't know that I feel totally comfortable trusting the content from this site because I don't know how or if it is being verified. On the other hand, whereistand does exactly what many Internet users crave - it aggregates, sorts and delivers analysis with little effort.
The About page is still blank, and I've not talked to anyone at the company directly, so I don't know who these folks are, unfortunately.
Here's what a journalist can learn: whereistand aggregates and sorts information in a way that's easy to use. While I think there's much work yet to be done...the ability to search just selected individuals would be nice...the basic site is a great example of how to deliver news to users in a friendly, helpful way. I could see local newspapers following this model: content from the paper/ wires would be fed automatically into a databank, and users could also contribute their own thoughts as part of a running commentary. Think of the applications for local elections, community issues, politics, sports, education and so on!
This is another clever site offering a way for users to evaluate public discourse using various data visualizations. The maps are incredibly detailed and full of data - it's really, really impressive. Think Many Eyes on serious steroids.
Not sure exactly where the data comes from - but there's a full explanation of how it works here. Founders are Peter Baldwin and David Price.
Adapting it for journalism: There's a reason Jim Brady and his team at WaPo.com are so damn popular. Databases, databases, databases. So much of the work they're lauded for is built on databases that users can explore - and more importantly, gain lots of contextual information.
So it's finally here: face recognition software packaged in a search engine. From the site: "Mugr can identify faces in your photos and match them to people. In other words, you can search for people using photos taken with your camera, phone, or webcam." You can search on the site or by sending an email - which means that users with camera-enabled cell phones can snap a shot of someone, upload or email it, and get back info on who the person is.
The site is currently in private beta (which means that you gotta wait or find someone who's already a member and can invite you). And so far, the database isn't robust enough to identify random strangers... it's being pitched more as a social networking site.
What this means for journalism: Image-recognition search is just on the horizon, and that will certainly help reporters cast the same kind of CSI spell on their targets as the tormented, justice-seeking Horatio Caine.
This is a free tool that allows users to search, what else, government documents. Not as robust as Lexis, and not as easy to use as SearchSystems.net, but it's free. Content comes via FOIA, and registered citizen reviewers can "review and comment on documents, adding their insights and expertise to the work of the national nonprofit organizations which are partnering on this project."
I did a simple search on Iowa and came up with 228 documents, including one from the Department of the Interior called "Rejected Endangered Species Act Recommendations" and another from the Dept. of Health and Human Services called "Determine Policy of Funding Pregnancy Resource Centers."
Clicking on the second document, I only get the page where "Iowa" appears. It looks to be the resume or CV of someone named Jamie Zanotti, who's a director of some department...
Many of the documents are either redacted in part or in full - still haven't found a gem. On the other hand, the site is new and administrators are relying on registered users to help vet and tag all of the docs. Maybe check back in 3-6 months to see what's there?
What it means for you: News orgs who aggregate and parse government information so that the average user can find and understand it are going to be wildly successful. The Democrat and Chronicle (upstate New York) is a fantastic example of how to do this right: have a look at RocDocs.
