Entries tagged “web”

FAIL is over. Fail is dead. Because it marks a lack of human empathy, and signifies an absence of intellectual curiosity, it is an unacceptable response to creative efforts in our culture. "Fail!" is the cry of someone who doesn't create, doesn't ship, doesn't launch, who doesn't make things. And because these people don't make things, they don't understand the context of those who do. They can't understand that nobody is more self-critical or more aware of the shortcomings of a creation than the person or people who made it.

When someone says "FAIL", what they’re really saying is, "I’m failing to understand a creative person’s constraints."

Of course, I'm not the first to point out that "Fail" sucks. Andy Baio articulated the case quite well, and I even touched on it in my Battledecks presentation a few years ago. Here's the relevant segment:

But we know that people who cry "FAIL!" are assholes — so why do we have to deem their petulant cry completely unacceptable? It's because of the Law of Fail:

Once a web community has decided to dislike a person, topic, or idea, the conversation will shift from criticizing the idea to become a competition about who can be most scathing in their condemnation.

It is in this way that the obnoxious jerks who offer an unthinking, uncritical belch in response to others' efforts kick off an even worse mob-minded pile on. And what I want to make clear is those who begin these conversations are, it must be said, the true failures. They choose a reflexive shorthand instead of a reasoned critique, and they bring out the worst in a community. I care deeply about people being creative on the web, and I care almost as much about people having thoughtful and productive conversations on the web.

So, fail is dead. I won't accept it in dialogue from those I communicate with, I won't permit those I'm connected to on social networks to use it around me, and no, you're not the first to think you're clever enough to use it as a comment here. If you have the urge to say it and you're a good person, then go do something creative instead. If you have the urge to say "Fail" and you haven't done anything? Well, then your statement speaks for itself.

One of the most frequent questions I get when I talk to people who are unfamiliar with social media on the web is, "Who writes all these blogs or Wikipedia? Who has the time?"

The answer, at least in this case, is me.

People who are skeptical about the web never seem to believe that we have a lot of time we could spend writing or collaborating on something original on the web. But they do understand the idea that people might be passionate and excited to write about topics they're passionate about.

So when I remembered a topic that's been an interest of mine for quite a while, I saw an opportunity to create a new Wikipedia page based on wanting to promote the work of someone whom I admire and respect, who inexplicably lacks a Wikipedia profile.

I wrote a simple page about Alan Leeds, whose role as a behind-the-scenes force in the popularization, promotion, and success of funk music truly can't be overstated. I admire his acumen, his taste, and the thoughfulness of his work over the years. But, as is the nature of people who work in music but aren't performers, his achievements thus far don't get enough attention outside of the respect for his work within the industry. I wouldn't argue a Wikipedia page is going to help improve that recognition, but it can help by being a useful resource for those of us who might want to make the case in the future. I have no doubt that I'm missing some of the subtle nuances that Wikipedia's moderators prefer (mostly because I don't really want to learn that much of the details of editing wikis), but the substance of the article is largely correct.

To my mind, that's a perfect motivation for the creation of a resource that people can use as a reference. Better yet, I am fairly confident I can draw the attention of friends and aquaintances who might have much more expertise about Mr. Leeds, and hopefully inspire them to point out resources or information that can improve the quality of the new page.

So, here's the brand new Wikipedia page about Alan Leeds. If you think you've got something to add, revise the article, pass along any relevant source materials, or add your voice in the comments. And if you're unfamiliar with his work, check it out — there's almost nobody else in the music business who's been so right, so many times, about the past, present and future of the funk.

I'd explained how to kill a personality a few weeks ago. Perhaps I was too pessimistic when I said, "[W]hat I see right now is the depressing reality that everybody can be completely reasonable, and the end result is that nobody is allowed to show the most engaging, interesting and unique parts of their personality."

John Furrier was actually at the dinner that inspired the entire conversation, article in Fortune, and ensuing hubbub. And adds some much-needed facts to the discussion. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a witness' account over my third-party conjecture any day. John says, "I was at this 'famous crap porn comment dinner' that Seagate put on for bloggers and press. I sat with Bill Watkins and was there with Jeffrey O’Brien from Fortune."

His conclusion? I was worrying needlessly:

I disagree with Anil ... Bill has a vibrant and dynamic personality - he is viewed within Seagate as a great leader. His comment was part of a bigger conversation - let me translate for people not aware of the slang - "crap = stuff" and "porn = early adopter rich multi media". Everyone in the tech business knows porn is the bellweather for all tech trends. Shame on Fortune because either way they look bad. One they know porn is an early adopter of all tech media, so they look bad for misquoting the CEO of Seagate. Secondly, if they didn’t know porn is the early adopter of media, then they look bad as a publication trying to cover tech with any credibility.

For a church going person then the quotes put forth by Fortune seem offensive - I was there at the dinner Bill Watkins was taken out of context. Fortune owes Bill Watkins big time for slamming him. Does it matter Bill Watkin and his crediblity was positive in the blogosphere and to the intelligent users.

This sentiment is echoed by Eric Eggertson over on Common Sense PR:

Straight shooters may occasionally apologize for things they’ve said, and they may temper their comments sometimes. But in my experience, the urge to speak plainly and openly is hard to overcome, once an executive has had success with that approach.

The business world would be a greyer place without some mavericks who are willing to make comments that haven’t been vetted by a committee.

So maybe there's still some hope yet for executives who speak their mind in public. I would just like to make sure I never see the phrase ''famous crap porn comment dinner" again. Call me old-fashioned again, but that seems somewhat... unappetizing.

About a month ago, Fortune's Jeffrey O'Brien interviewed Seagate CEO Bill Watkins, and pulled the conversation's most memorable quote for the headline: "Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn."

Predictably, the honestly and entertainment value of the quote got Watkins hailed as a hero by those tired of the usual platitudes for the press. So what comes next? The requisite apology:

In the course of one particular conversation with a Fortune Magazine blogger, in which we discussed a number of topics including sports, business and politics, I also explained how the proliferation of digital content and e-commerce were benefiting the storage business. In illustrating both the positive and negative impacts that the Internet and "we" as technology companies have on the world, unfortunately, and unwisely, I also used pornography as an example to illustrate a point. Fortune Magazine chose to focus narrowly on this example in their headline. I did not state this as our "mission." They are in the news business and eager to get their reader's attention and I should have known better. Even though I believe Fortune's headline writers took my comments out of context, I want you to know that I am sorry if this has in any way offended anyone. Clearly, I value everyone who works at Seagate and the culture we have built together.

Here we have a chain of perfectly reasonable behaviors leading to a result that's unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Watkins reasonably said the quote in the context of a dinner conversation with a number of bloggers, where I'm sure a lot of jokes were being exchanged. O'Brien reasonably included the line in the story because it's a good hook for presenting the company as down-to-earth. O'Brien's editor Jim Ledbetter reasonably used the line in the story's headline because, in his own words, "as O'Brien's editor on this story, I moved the quote high up in the story, and also turned it into a headline that, yes, I thought would grab the reader's attention."

And some Seagate employees in Minnesota reasonably thought, "Hey, my work is more important than just letting somebody store porn."

But the net result is that Seagate's CEO is going to work extra hard to never show any personality or have a sense of humor again when he's on the record. Jeff O'Brien will be a little more reluctant to include the killer line in a story. Jim Ledbetter is going to be more sensitive to charges he's being sensational in his headlines. And Seagate employees are going to spend more time worrying about whether their CEO represents them accurately, or if their work is meaningful.

There must be some lesson to be learned here, about the telephone game. Or about how the fact that any of us can be quoted out of context as public figures at virtually any time. But what I see right now is the depressing reality that everybody can be completely reasonable, and the end result is that nobody is allowed to show the most engaging, interesting and unique parts of their personality. I want to blame the Minnesotans, but it's really not their fault.