Strong Criticism from Diane Rotz, PWGD Board Member

Hi Ben.

PWGD is about keeping everyone in communication with everyone else, so I think the project itself it very much in line with PWGD’s basic goals. The only concern I have is that you haven’t clearly outlined a plan of action. What I mean is, you’re setting up a news access that sounds like exactly the sort of thing we need right now, but there’s no plan in place to “generate passion in solving local problems.” Since that, from our earliest communication on this project, seems to also be the primary goal of PWGD, you might want to clarify how this particular project works toward that. Knowledge sharing is all well and good, and it is definitely what the Knight Grant is all about... Perhaps I’m thinking more long-term than you are at the moment. We have to start somewhere after all.

I rather thought, when you first brought this up, that you largely intended to be nationwide, if not worldwide. While you do have to start with what you can handle and then expand, an idea that will work on a nationwide basis won’t necessarily work in a smaller group. Nationally you would have little trouble finding enough people to support the network, but locally... My home town has 429 people in it. Our version of this network is Mrs. Thompson, who’s the secretary at our City Hall/Firestation/Police Department. Maybe one in ten households have computers and maybe one out of five of those households have someone over the age of twelve who knows how to use it. Out of those, maybe one in three can use something other than AOL-style e-mail accounts.

I don’t know anything about the town you are proposing it for, but to get everyone online would be a ridiculous goal. Even a majority would be near impossible.

Maybe what you need is something offline, to reach out to the people who aren’t a part of the on-line community. Maybe work with the local community center or get articles into the local paper that summarize the highlights of the online community. Something like that, anyway. Something that will reach out to those who don’t or can’t use a computer.

As to the proposal itself, I have a couple of little nit-picky grammatical things to mention. Nothing important, just suggestions.

A centralized place for community information is far from a new concept, but the philosophy is – “ an open, nonprofit philosophy, combined with the sophisticated technology for enabling everyone to participate in both contributing information and deciding about it's level of distribution is what makes PWGD News radical.

You opened quotes here and then used the quote to finish your thought without closing quotes. That made you use the word “philosophy” twice in five words. If the quotes are supposed to close after the word “distribution,” then you need to change “is what” to “which.” If the quotes don’t close after “distribution,” then you need to re-write the whole paragraph.

A full news network, including movie and restaurant reviews, news stories, personal blogs, and all that is a fair idea, but is that really the goal you want to apply yourself to? I mean, those aren’t exactly revolutionary. The lack of censorship is a new angle – new outside of radical conspiracy theorists, that is – but this sounds primarily like a not-for-profit version of CNN.com, which would be novel, but I don’t think that’s the impression you were looking for. Although putting a little more emphasis on how you plan to encourage individual involvement might alter that impression; possibly alter it by a great deal.

If quality local journalism is to thrive in the 21st century, it will have to be in a mutually beneficial relationship with myriad other ways to share information locally. This coalition led by PWGD is best suited to re-embed journalism in the local exchange of information. A nonprofit organization dedicated to true democracy is better suited for this task than a for-profit or even a nonprofit dedicated to any specific purpose.

You should strike the sentence: “This coalition led by PWGD is best suited
to re-embed journalism in the local exchange of information.” It’s unnecessary because it doesn’t provide any explanation. Of course you think you’re organization is best, the Knight Foundation people want to know why. You could also list some sort of example of what ways information is already shared locally and what sort of relationship those ways need to form.

PWGD will be able to adopt open standards for on-line publishing because we can talk face-to-face with the decision-makers, such as a nonprofit's communication director, a concerned citizen with a web site, a local newspaper editor, or the town librarian.

Other people can’t? This is news to me...

Planned PWGD enhancements such as community ridesharing boards and 'meet other people interested in...' services will explicitly encourage community-building in the real world.

Where else would it be, other than the real world? Either add “online” after “enhancements” or scratch the phrase: “in the real world.”

Amazing things can happen when most people in an area share a common space for information “especially, as PWGD and an ever-increasing number of partners feel, if that space is fundamentally under the nonprofit, democratic control of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Skip the word “most.” You don’t want most, you want all, which “people” kind of encompasses on it’s own. Also, I don’t like the phrase “of the people, by the people, and for the people” here. I think it’s wordy, tacky, and kitchy. You also used it already in your opening sentence. It felt okay there, but here it seems forced. However, when I asked a friend her opinion, she thought you were just proving your point, so... Consider that last bit just my opinion.

Anyway, you wanted my opinion and there it is. Hope it helps.

-Diane

‹ Communication Problem Worse than Previously ThoughtupNotes from Gordon Fowler of MyNatick.org ›