Tools for Dialogue and Deliberation on Wicked Problems

Making genuine many-to-many discussion a realistic possibility: beta testers needed

Hello everyone,

My colleague Barbara Nowacka was recently recommended to this network by David Price as a place where we might be able to find people interested in trying out our web app yoomoot.com

This is what we're all about:

For too long the Web's potential as a place of genuine mass communication has been wasted. On popular forums, mailing lists and comment threads, the virtual crowd's utterances are immediately submerged in a sea of undifferentiated text. If everyone speaks, no-one hears.

yoomoot changes this by creating a new kind of discussion space where large discussions can be browsed through and digested much more rapidly and logically than on standard sites. By doing this yoomoot makes it possible, for the first time in history, to have a coherent conversation between thousands of people. We hope this will eventually revolutionize the way society solves problems and makes decisions.

So, anyone interested in taking a look? Give me an email address and I'll send you an invite to the private beta site.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott Nesler on March 12, 2010 at 2:13pm: Hi Nicholas,

I very much like your approach to journalism. Your description as "He says, she says" very much describes political discourse and the media in the United States.

Based on prior discussions with Jack, I did some experimenting with Bohm dialog. It was an educational experience, though I could not discount the value and the power of individual objectives. The exercise provided the opportunity to become a better listener, though the inability to acquire a collaborative solution became unbearable.

I mention Bohm dialog as a comparison to the "he said, she said" model of political discourse. One is a passive form of discourse, while the other is aggressive.

Capturing and connecting all angles of a discussion is of major value to discourse of any type. Connectivity exposes collateral damage and provides the opportunity to seek solutions reaching a higher level of common good.

The dialog within blogs are mostly incoherent and lacking in quality. Blogs do represent a media more representative of the populace. The quality of existing op-ed articles as published in the media represent a higher quality of logic and writing skill. Though the opinion tends to represent a minuscule portion of humanity. Developing the tools allowing an average individual to logically, respectfully, and coherently express their point of view is missing in the discussion of new internet technologies.

I believe you are on to something with Yoomoot. Though, the factor of the populace as it relates to the discussion appears to be missing.

In attempt to acquire visibility with my ideas, I attempt to improve my writing skills. The following is my most resent essay.

Letter to the Op-Ed Columnist; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nicolas Holzapfel on March 12, 2010 at 7:46pm: I hadn't heard of the Bohm dialog before this so I did some quick google research. Sounds really fascinating, I'd love to try it out myself. yoomot is very objective-focused so there is a marked difference there from the Bohm style.

The Do Good Gauge looks interesting. I think I'd have to see an example of it being applied in practice to really understand it.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Scott Nesler on March 12, 2010 at 8:32pm: Seeing an example of the Do Good Gauge being applied is a common comment I receive. I'm happy to say that functionality has been developed to demonstrate the refinement process, though I have yet to find willing participants.

I've resorted to using Craig's List Volunteer page in attempt to recruit participation.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nicolas Holzapfel 1 day ago: Well I can sympathize with that!

I'd be happy to contribute. I'm always interested in this kind of thing.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Scott Nesler 1 day ago: There are two main premises to my idea, one I clearly see as being similar to yours. The shared idea is to make sense of all the clutter within internet communication. I see this task as the more time consuming of the two premises. I also believe to reduce clutter there should be a higher quality of conversation to choose from. Quality comes from refinement and feedback. Collaboration starts with two and builds from there.

I suggest we pursue a common interest, then work to develop an essay worthy of publication. We can't count on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or the Gaurdian, though there are possibilities of forums equal in visibility and attentive readership.

It would help to have more participation in this effort, though I would limit the initial experience to a dozen. My website provides a skeleton for the refinement process. Additional functionality can easily be developed during the course of an exercise to provide skin, meat will come later.; ▶ Reply to This