There's a lot of standard ways to do this, ones that would be very easy to implement and develop.

It is best to have in the back of our minds an aim for a much higher field of interface display for elements that make up profiles and personas.

Phase 1 of the profile system would probably have to be simplified, though we shouldn't forget to be mindful of optimal data collection by defining a wide scope of attributes/areas of relevance. You just have to think of what people usually like to collect for good infographics for ideas. Data-mining is something we could do at anytime in the process after it has launched, yet having a good scope document or checklist will make the integration easier and bring about an immersive platform in the long run.

Phase 2 would ideally allow multi-dimensional displays of modulised data feeds. This would be produced from the individual's pushed data in combination with captured data from their interactions/activity.
Using a three dimensional timeline approach this can allow insightful macro and micro viewing of patterns unfolding as the person's involvement passes, persists and grows.


Here is a list of elements we can refine and consider further:

PROFILE (gauge of initial bio setup) + (ongoing gauge for activity)
• Avatar (timelined)
• Bio Blurb
• Location (GMT+9:30) + (country location / state location / exact location - trusted people only)
• Current Goal/Aim/Focus (timelined)
• Faved Projects (level1)
• Faved Topics (level2)
• Direct Messages (open or private)
• Connections (visual mapping)
• Discussions (Comments + Sessions)
• Web Presence (elsewhere online link link (screenshot thumbs)
• Personality Descriptors (timelined - tag cloud / emoicon cloud)
• Pictorial/Photo Albums/Presentations
• Resource Downloads (personally created pdfs, zips - open source)

These items would be mappable into a visual timeline and clustered arrays with filter options.

Gavin and Mark - great stuff!!

It is amazing how folks like you keep propelling this forward with your practical insights. I am continuously amazed.

Mark - I am not sure if pre-disposed commitments for the 2 layer approach you are proposing, is the best way. IMHO, participation, and engagement should be organic. It should lead to trust, and eventually a layer 1 or layer 2 level of commitment.

Thoughts?

Prince

Cheers,
Prince

i don't know how i feel about that "readiness to donate every three months" thing. if in a moment of inspiration i choose to donate, i will, but i don't like the idea of saying what i'm going to do in 3 months. what happens if money gets tight and i need to make sure i can cover my mortgage? now i've created an obligation i can't meet. i would prefer to have it be something like 'ask me about donating towards initiatives around 'x' topic". i personally wouldn't feel comfortable putting up financial standing offers. or actually maybe not any standing offers. once i develop a relationship with a person and know about what they want to do and how i can contribute, then i'll make a decision. i don't think i would be able to just put an offer on the table like that.

i do like what you said about layers within profiles. like i mentioned on the blog earlier, i have been torn about how you would reveal 'levels of consciousness'.... it could certainly be a system where we have robust personal profiles, but we choose which portions to "unlock" for others.

Agree on the value of prudence with standing offers of funds. Yet I was thinking in the example above of micro-giving - as little as $1-20 dollars. It sounds negligible, but if we're out to design systems that can scale, it could be a very significant way to do good for socnets that grow and tap microresources that people are already (e.g. Prosper, GlobalGiving, TippingBucket, Kiva) proving ready to give. The founder of Grameen Bank changed hundreds of millions of lives starting with a catalytic first $17 loan (if I recall) a few decades ago. If EBD wants to give users the option to make microgifts in the user profiles, one way to test the approach would be to launch with a cap (e.g. $5) on what crowdgiving pledges might be made.

What do you think?

Best,

Mark

Gavin,
Your outline is mind blowing(2me) in clarifying how to get from here to there. It's an operational path to assemble data points, as opposed to words to reveal the context in which a person moves.

Mark and Vanessa,
My take is that a going forward clear and definable commitment can turn out to be very important as if says " This is what you can reasonably expect from me in the future." To my mind that is at the crux of "trust" as a way to manage going forward risks and opportunities.

Mark,

You've probably heard about Jumo (http://jumo.com/), a new philanthropic platform being launched by one of the facebook co-founders. (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/18/facebook-co-founder-hughes-launches-philanthropic-venture-jumo/. Maybe it will be something that fits with the kinds of things you're thinking about.

As i've said before, my interests are on a better communications platform, which I've laid out as Junto. Though I'm interested in seeing a micropayments platform launch that will make giving and contributing easier for people, it is not my focus. When one is built, I'll be supportive of it.

Also, you laid out a very thorough questionnaire here for "Junto Interviews" - again, this part is not my focus. I am interested in just building a communications platform. I am not personally interested in an interview format.... in fact, I want the system to exist so that I personally can use it to collaborate with people. I don't want to be interviewing people, I just want to be having conversations with people about what we can do together to move forward. As I mentioned before, I see it being a simple system, like Twitter, that people can use for their own needs. (So, your interview questionnaire may very well serve your personal needs if you were to use the Junto platform to connect with experts. I'm just saying that that is not something that I would want to integrate into the platform itself.)

And lastly, you asked in the comments section of a post about the ETA for Junto launch. I appreciate your confidence in my abilities, but let me just clarify where I'm at:

I'm currently a full-time graduate student exploring how social media technologies impact society and culture. My blog posts are my reflections and explorations and discoveries. The idea for Junto is just that - an idea. I have a vision for how a more robust communications platform could help people to self-organize quicker, so that they can align around an idea and then meet offline in order to affect actual change. How that change gets implemented offline is not my focus. My focus is on exploring how a better online user interface could be a catalyst to facilitate the offline stuff. Maybe it will mean that some people will step forward to help build a rough version of this platform so I can begin to experiment with how the platform would work. Maybe no one will step forward and I will just practice with a mashup of currently existing tools (as I'm doing now), such as having skype video chats, logging conversations, creating concept maps based on the ideas generated within the conversations, and thinking about how the process could be improved. Then I'll write a paper about it and submit it to my department as a culmination of my graduate work.

The point is, I have a specific narrow focus on what I personally want to achieve, and I just want to make sure we are on the same page about this. Since you began contributing your thoughts and comments at EBD, you have talked about a pledgebank system and standing offers and micropayments, and I think those things are really neat. I just want to make sure that you know that that is not my focus, and I have no immediate plans to involve it in my focus. If I do generate enough collaborators to launch Junto, I could easily spend the next couple of years developing it and refining it as a collaboration tool. Integrating a microdonation platform is not even on my radar at this point, because my vision for the Junto platform itself is what I'm thinking about.

I just wanted to lay this out so that it's clear who I am and what I am doing. I have no intention to "evolve" my blog into a microdonation site. I use it to put my thinking into writing, share my thoughts, and refine them through dialogue. That's what Emergent by Design is about. Junto is my pet project.

I hope this all makes sense and that there is clarification if there was confusion before. As I said, I appreciate all your thinking, and you have helped me generate many ideas, but I don't want you to have any false impressions about what it is that I'm doing. If the blog is a place that helps you meet like minded people who want to create the pledgebank idea with you, I'm glad, but it's not something I am prepared to be personally involved in at this time.

Cheers,

Venessa

That's precisely how I've been looking at it. I think it's fair to say that the "intent" of your blog has been co-created and it's exactly your focus and ability to set the boundaries is a critical element in allowing it "to be all that it can be. "

Venessa,

Well and clearly said.

I've understood your intent in creating the EBD wiki as being to set up a place for folks inspired by your blog to -

- discuss related ideas, and

- map out opportunities to apply them.

I understand and deeply respect the lines you've drawn regarding your interest in and focus on Junto, and will do better to keep my Q&A and user profile ideas and discussions from looking to relate to it.

Best,

Mark

V (and all),

I've moved the draft online interview guide to "A Learning Revolution" and made a few edits to focus it on providing inputs for socnet learning networks.

Look forward to ongoing discussions and improvement.

Best,

Mark