YouthNet blog

Monday Apr 30, 2007

Branding Science

Love Creative (the people being the branding of 'V') are working on a new project for the Science Council.

The Science Council are developing a brand new website for young people and the website will be a place where young people go to find out about the interesting opportunities that studying science can offer. So, the first thing they need to do is choose a name for the new site. They’ve developed 6 alternative names and they need your help to choose a winner. 10 lucky voters will win an Ipod.

You can vote at www.sciencevote.co.uk.

Thursday Apr 26, 2007

Googleized

It's become fashionable to criticise Google for spreading itself too thinly and not concentrating solely on its core search product. While its revenues continue to soar and its share price goes up and up, the naysayers reckon too much diversification could be the company's downfall.

But perhaps Google are playing a longer game than they are sometimes given credit for. They now offer office software, for example, (including a new powerpoint-type product) that means you can run your life on Google products. None of the applications are as sophisticated as those offered by Microsoft, but in some respects the functionality is better and, more importantly, they are free.

The ease with which Google applications can be stuck together is also useful. Tom Smith has used Google Page Creator (yet another new tool) to build a website for a small running club that combines a blog, calendar, information pages and discussion. The interfaces are so user-friendly that the site, built in a day, can be maintained by club members with no previous technical experience.

You might dislike Google's growing dominance. You might prefer to see Microsoft's hegemony overthrown rather than replaced. But it's hard to deny that Google is making great products that are opening up access to the web and, in general, making life easier. So what if they're getting rich on the way?

Monday Apr 23, 2007

The Last One

Well this is my final blog (for the time being anyway – god knows what Kuljeet and YouthNet will get me roped into next!).

You will all be pleased, if amazed, to know that I completed the Flora London Marathon yesterday.  It wasn't easy, at all, and at least 5 times I thought 'I can't do this, I don't seem to be getting anywhere, I'll never finish', but I did.  It took me 6 hours approx although after 5 and a half, I stopped caring and just wanted to finish.  I couldn't feel my feet, felt sick from all the Lucozade, and the heat was ridiculous (it's April for heaven sake!).  You may think from this paragraph that I hated every moment, but you'll be wrong.

It was an amazing, amazing day.  The crowds, the runners, the Rhinos and gorillas, the water people and my friend who was also running, Michael Baines, made it a fantastic day.  If I didn't feel so exhausted, I would be a lot happier I think and as the week goes on, I know that I'll get smugger and prouder of myself. 

It seemed a lot longer than 26.2 miles.  Especially when I saw the first mile mark, surely they have got it wrong!  However, a friend told me (thanks Howard) to take it one mile at a time and even after ½ way I kept that in mind.  Sounds simple but it really worked.  The last 600m was a killer, and there was nothing left for a sprint at the end but I did it all, I didn't stop jogging at all, I didn't walk at all, and I finished. 

I think the only down side for me was the Cutty Sark.  I watch the race every year, and every year the Cutty Sark, at the 6 mile mark, is a huge event, and looks amazing on TV.  It wasn't quite the same.  But running down past the Houses of Parliament and Buck House, that was something.  I used to cycle round London and past those sights every day but yesterday seemed more important somehow.

The highlight, without a doubt, was the finish line – never, ever, ever, have I ever been so pleased to see a finish line in my life.  I felt very proud.

Many things kept me going.  A cliché but the crowds are amazing, all the way along – they say it gets a bit quiet sometimes, but I didn't notice that, they were all the way.  The bands, kids doing high fives all the way round, having your name shouted is amazing. 

My friends  - I have discovered since my mum died how important friends are, and again this has proved that ten fold – I have had people pick me up from random places, run me home, take me to car boots, donate stuff, put me up for the weekend, ensure I eat right, everything.  And the amount of text messages and phone calls I have received have been overwhelming.

The same can be said for my colleagues (doesn't this sound like an Oscars speech!)? I've only worked for Vodafone since September and since that time I have worked with the nicest, most genuine, caring, loveliest people I've ever known.  I know Youthnet is a Vodafone charity, but the support I've had from my team has been awesome.  Thank you all.  A special thank you has to go to Michael, my fellow runner.  It was a good send having someone to share the aches, pains and talks about miles and miles with.  I know we bored our friends and colleagues senseless, but without each other, I know it would have been a lot different.  Thanks mate.

All of the above and everyone else who sponsored me – I know a lot would have sponsored me for what ever charity I did, but they did sponsor YouthNet.  It is a relatively new charity that needs exposure such as this, and at least half the people who sponsored me are unknown to me, so thank you to them.  I can thank friends and colleagues personally but not the ANONs and the names I don't know.  You have all been amazingly generous and I'm so pleased that I exceeded my total by quite a lot (and I think money is still coming in).

And finally to Kuljeet.  Thank you.  This was unknown territory for both of us.  I didn't know how much support I needed and neither did you, but you surpassed anything I was expecting.  You have got it just right.  You have become a friend and have proved to be a great support.  YouthNet is a charity to be proud to work and run for. 

Thanks again to everyone.  And bring on next April – lets do it all again!!!!!!

With matching from the Vodafone UK Foundation, Donna raised an incredible £2,840 for YouthNet!

If you haven't sponsored her already you can here: http://www.justgiving.com/donnashaylerrunsthemarathon

Thursday Apr 19, 2007

Are they on drugs? (Or am I?)

A new report published yesterday has poured scorn on all aspects of government drugs policy.

On drugs education:

"There is little international or UK evidence to suggest that drug education and prevention have had any significant impact on drug use. The international literature consistently indicates that most school-based prevention efforts do little to reduce initiation. Even those programmes that are delivered effectively seem to have very little impact on future drug use."

On tougher enforcement:

"The courts handed out nearly three times as much prison time in 2004 as they did 10 years earlier...[and yet the] prices of the principal drugs in Britain have declined for most of the last ten years and there is no indication that tougher enforcement has succeeded in making drugs less accessible."

In conclusion:

"There is little evidence from the UK, or any other country, that drug policy influences either the number of drug users or the share of users who are dependent. There are numerous other cultural and social factors that appear to be more important. It is notable that two European countries that are often used as contrasting examples of tough or liberal drug policies, Sweden and the Netherlands, both have lower rates of overall and problematic drug use than the UK."

In other words, not only have the specifics of drug policy failed, the whole idea of a drugs policy is flawed. And who do you think came up with this damning conclusions? Why, the newly formed UK Drug Policy Commission, of course - the quotes above are from the summary of their launch report (pdf).

While it's difficult to challenge any of their conclusions it does seem hard to see where it leaves them. A Drug Policy Commission that is sceptical about the very idea of drug policies? Maybe this is just the kind of inspired logic required to get to grips with an apparently intractable problem. Or maybe someone put something in my tea.

Tuesday Apr 17, 2007

I've Got Social Web Angst

I had a bit of a funny moment this morning whilst working my way through my bowl of muesli at my desk. It was triggered by Fiona, our Chief Exec, passing me a clipping from today's Guardian Comments section. The clipping showed an interesting article by James Harkin about the psychological effects of social networking (as in the web 2.0 meaning of the term), and you can read it here.

Whilst I was looking for the article on the Guardian website, I came across another piece called "Farewell to Facebook" by Alex Stein. Both of these articles are interesting, and both adopt a cautionary tone about the perils of social networking.

What's interesting is both articles are written by people who, judging by their pictures, are not what is commonly taken as the typical social networking demographic.*

This got thinking about a seminar I went to last week, about how non-profits can use the social web. It was a great seminar - really interesting and very good to see what other people are up to in the non-profit world.

I couldn't help but notice though that the youngest person there was probably one of my colleagues, our Communities Development Officer for the community section of TheSite.org. In fact, most of the delegates were probably over 30 years old. I know there's a good reason for this – the work related nature of the seminar meant it was more relevant for a slightly older demographic.

One of the discussions at the seminar was about the risks of user created content and the importance of moderation. The conversation moved onto Tim O'Reilly's proposed Bloggers "Code of Conduct", and what was acceptable in terms of moderation of comments and posts.

At this point someone in the audience compared the conversation we were having at the seminar to conversations on blogs. Their point was that fruitful conversations occur when all parties have followed the thread of the conversation, and if that doesn't occur then of course it'll descend into anonymous abuse, name calling or potentially much worse. I disagree – the web should be the opposite of an exclusive online "club" (eg. you can only contribute if you're clued up), and a truly valuable conversation doesn't need two highly educated people - but that's beside the point.

My point (and believe it or not I do have one), is that the vast majority of people (myself included) that talk about web 2.0, the social web, the read-write web, whatever you want to call it, are not primarily in the age demographic that drives it, as quite a few readers of Alex Stein's article recognise judging by the comments. (*I know there are plenty of people outside of the 16-24 year old age range that are completely immersed in all things 2.0, and I know that often the demographic of sites like MySpace isn't quite what you might expect, but I still think most people would agree that the Social Web is predominantly driven by young people.)

That's an obvious point that people must have mentioned before, but shouldn't we be a bit worried about it?

Or is this the way that most big (massive?) social changes happen – the people doing it just get on with it, whilst the rest of us observe, take notes and come up with names for what we're seeing?

Given that this time, the social change we're seeing arguably is the people that are doing it, doesn't that make it different?

Having talked to quite a broad range of people about "web 2.0", I would say that most of them don't know what I'm on about, a few of them don't really relate to the term "web 2.0" at all, but happily live their lives predominantly online, and the others are, in the nicest possible way (and I include myself in this), geeks, who are passionate about technology and social change.

So, my questions are:

Does any one outside of "Web 2.0 World" care about this stuff at all?

Does the majority of "the people" that is at the heart of this huge cultural social shift know they're part of it?

Does it matter if they don't?

Phew, existentialist crisis over.

Friday Apr 13, 2007

Vote youth

The forthcoming local elections next month will be the first since the law was changed to allow 18 year-olds to stand.

As has been mentioned here before, we have crazily inconsistent minimum age laws in this country (at 16 you can get married but can't watch porn or vote), but this reform is certainly progress.

Apparently there are 18-21 year-old candidates standing for election in Manchester, Stratford upon Avon, Waveney, Poole, Barrow, Southampton, Oldham, Lancaster, West Oxfordshire, Runnymede, Flyde, Harlow, Bournemouth.

Among the youngest is Sarah Wilson in Poole who, judging by the level of debate in the comments to a story about the elections in her local paper, will have her work cut out.

Now, how about reducing the minimum voting age to 16?

Thursday Apr 05, 2007

Does anyone read these things?

Does anyone read these things?  Be nice to hear from anyone, especially those ANON who sponsor me and I don't know who they are.

Well two and a half weeks to go and getting very excited.  Have upped the ante with regard to the training and am now running nearly every day – albeit only 4 mileish (and a biggy at the weekend).

I did 17 miles on Sunday – it was a beautiful day, if a bit windy, but the run started off terribly, with both shins ceasing up.  Got to 1.5 miles and was convinced I could never run again.  However, I had a stretch and then all was good.  It was a hard run, a lot of hills (yes even in Lincolnshire!) but I did it.  Felt very proud, if worn out.  I've found that every time I run a long way I learn something new.  Sunday I learnt that running 17 miles on three Weetabix (other cereals are available!) is not a good idea.  I also realised why they say don't do a big run the week before the race.  Wiped out Monday and very stiff yesterday but absolutely fine today so raring to go. 

I'm planning on 21 miles on Saturday and then that will be me done until the 22^nd April.  I actually get nervous before the big weekend runs so god knows what I'm going to be like on the day. 

Anyway, probably last blog next time until after the day so will let you all know how I get on at the weekend.

Help Donna raise her fundraising target for YouthNet - sponsor her here: www.justgiving.com/donnashaylerrunsthemarathon

Tuesday Apr 03, 2007

No laughing matter

The point at which moderators intervene in a forum is frequently a matter of judgement rather than the simple application of rules. Comment posters tend to enjoy sailing close to the wind and testing the tolerance of whichever blog or board they use. I was briefly a mod on TheSite.org's boards a few years ago and found myself continually having to ask more experienced moderators whether certain comments were acceptable or not .(They almost always were.)

A forum or blog's owners are, of course, responsible for the comments posted by users; they have published them. So I was surprised to see The Guardian happy to allow numerous jokes about paedophilia in the comments about a column by Zoe Williams.

The column was defending Ryhs Ifans' right to tell such jokes so I suppose the moderators were put in a tricky position. It appears that some jokes were removed but I'm pretty sure none at all would have been allowed in the printed edition of the newspaper, so I wonder what the justification is for permitting them online.

Perhaps it's simply that people are more used to seeing uncensored material online and are prepared to tolerate it. There is also the question of intent. As Zoe Williams article about Rhys Ifans argues, no one thinks for a moment that he is in fact defending paedophilia - his point is to challenge the taboo. The same, presumably goes for the joke tellers among the commentors.

I'm not convinced though. Some taboos deserve to be challenged in jokes. Others, including paedophilia, surely deserve their taboo status. That's not to say the subject should not be discussed, or conventional wisdom challenged, but not as a gag. And certainly not one where the punchline is that sex with children is acceptable (which is how the jokes attached to The Guardian column work), however obviously ironic the teller is being.

Real satirists choose their targets carefully. Chris Morris, for example, mocked the media's hysterical and self-serving attitude towards paedophilia. That was a taboo worth breaking.