An article in today’s Boston Globe, reports that a new regulation will compel bloggers to disclose any affiliations or gifts they have received.

As Web 2.0 matures, it will be more regulated. This is an issue I have blogged and spoken about many times before.  But what makes this article even more interesting to me is the reaction of bloggers. In this case the regulation actually seeks to make blogs more transparent – exposing any and all connections between the author and another possibly conflicting interest. The article states “Beginning today, bloggers, Twitterers, and others who write online reviews or endorse products … must disclose it when they receive free merchandise or payment for writing about an item.” Ah – disclosure – full transparency.  This is a good thing – right?

Web 2.0 zealots have long pontificated that the 2.0 movement is grounded in transparency and openness. And yet, in this instance they are “unhappy” with a ruling that makes their sites even more transparent. Oh the irony.

As previously stated, I have many times before blogged about the need for responsible use of Web and Enterprise 2.0 technologies, including the strategic leveraging of security, control and yes full-disclosure.  As Web 2.0 matures, perhaps many of its zealots will have to mature as well and realize that in many cases their  writings are not random ramblings but real business content, which needs to be responsibly managed and  accurately positioned for what it really is.

The article is really worth a read. The commentary and arguments from bloggers are telling and at times almost amusing.

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase ” The medium is the message.”  I have often quoted McLuhan in my writings and presentations, in agreement.  But, I fear far too many take his message the wrong way, which can and has lead to serious repercussions.

Yesterday I was watching to a video podcast interview between two colleagues.  Both will remain anonymous.  Who they are is not important.  Their posture and what they said are important. Both are noted industry advocates in the ECM and Enterprise 2.0 space. Both provide advice to the market, which is what concerns me. One of them made a statement that was simply naive and misleading, and the other one did not correct or modify it.

My angst is grounded in the further worry that history will repeat itself, and not in a positive way. The interview was focused on the use of collaborative social technologies in an Enterprise 2.0 setting. The comment made that caused my concern – and I paraphrase – was that many enterprise users are using tools such as Twitter (Twitter was specifically mentioned in the discussion),  without any real thought as to the management of the content created.

There were two distinct points made that were misleading – possibly downright wrong.

1. My colleagues casually pondered who will “own’ the content and if indeed it will be considered subject to discovery. I believe that the courts, at least in the United States, have already ruled on this. As I stated in an earlier blog post, in a class action suit regarding patient/individual privacy rights, the courts ruled that content in “FaceBook, MySpace, instant-messaging threads, blog posts and whatever else the plaintiffs might have done online” was discoverable. The plaintiffs’ objection that this violated the plaintiffs’ privacy was shot down. These tools and their content were viewed as public, not on a private network, but the public world wide web. Who “owns” the content.  Apparently Twitter, in the example given by my colleagues, and, Twitter content is “public” content and therefore discoverable.  There should be no speculation about this.

I believe part of the reason these individuals got it wrong was that they confused Web 2.0 tools with Enterprise 2.0 tools.  This is an issue that also caused frustration for me and Ron Miller during the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference, an issue we both blogged about.

2. The second statement that caused angst was the more serious one.  In further discussing how and why organizations should take a proactive approach to managing Twitter content (again – I am being liberal here in accepting their example of Twitter as an Enterprise 2.0 tool, my commentary is more focused on Enterprise 2.0 content – not public-based Web 2.0 content),  a statement was made that organizations need to take a specific look at the Enterprise 2.0 content and develop a management strategy specific to it.  A comment was made along the lines of “You should not want to apply the same rules and policies to the Twitter threads that you do your contracts.”  WRONG.  As stated in the title of this blog post, it ain’t the medium it’s the message.

This perspective and advice was the same naive opinion that got too many organizations in trouble with e-mail.  You should not have a different management policy for e-mail, or blogs, or microblogs. The medium or format should not dictate policy (other than acceptable use of the tool of course). It is the content that matters no matter what format or tool it was created in.  My two colleagues made somewhat light reference to “Twitter streams” as if they could not really contain any mission critical content.  This was the same way many felt decades ago when e-mail was emerging as an “unofficial and casual” means of communication.  If commentary regarding contract terms (sticking with their example) are made in a Twitter stream then they should most definitely be subjected to the same policy and scrutiny as the contract – just as any relevant and related e-mail is now subjected to e-discovery.

Do not trivialize Twitter or any other form of Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 created content.  The tools used do not determine the value of or discoverability of the content – the content does.

I am appalled, indeed outraged by the Chinese government’s ongoing use of censorship and suppression of search tools, blogs and microblogging in order to “erase” the Tianamen Square Massacre  from the history of China. According to recent articles, there is an entire generation of Chinese who have no idea the event ever happened.

But, while I am outraged, I am also encouraged by the very fact that such an action is a very powerful example of the power of search and information management. Unfortunately in this case it is a misuse of that power in reverse.

There is a glimmer of hope – according to one source, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Chinese to control the internet, Twitter users found alternative outlets in rival providers to evade the censors.

Power to the people and power to search and information management.

Let’s face it, most enterprise systems, the systems that employees have to use EVERY DAY to do their job, are painful interfaces to use. They are barely usable, let alone elegant.

Why is that?

And more importantly, what can be done to FIX this seemingly inevitable problem?

Is “elegance” to high a bar to ask that our systems, software, processes, products and services measure up to?

What is Elegance?

What makes a design elegant, and what can we borrow from design across a variety of industries, from entertainment to mobile devices, from manufacturing to ongoing learning, to bring elegance into our own companies?

The podcast interview today (below) features Matthew May (@matthewemay) author of the brand new book “In Pursuit of Elegance” (more information on the book at InPursuitOfElegance.com), as well as author of the critically acclaimed book “The Elegant Solution” published in 2006, and which I had a tremendously enjoyable time interviewing him about in early 2007.

The discussion is hosted by Dan Keldsen (@dankeldsen), Co-founder and Principal of Information Architected, and discusses the four primary components of elegance, as brought forth in Matthew’s most recent book.

Do You Have Stories of Elegance in the Enterprise?

If you have examples of elegance within your business, whether the elegance is found in the products you sell, the systems you use internally, or any other application of elegance… I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, so please feel free to contribute your comments, concerns and questions, and together, we can work to make elegant solutions far more common than they typically are.

Is your Information Architected for Innovation? for Sustainable business? for Elegance?

Listen now!

Listen to the Interview: IAM Talking: Sustainably Elegant

Is your Information Architected for Elegance?

Contact us at 
617-933-9655 to discuss how you can reap the benefits of an architecture and design approach that will enable you to maximize the value of your content, information and knowledge without pursuing a painful and expensive re-architecting of your systems.

More details on our practices related to Elegance and Innovation can be found at:

• Information Architected for Innovation Management