This is by revere at Effect Measure, re-posted here with permission:
Our Flu Wiki partner, DemFromCT, has an important post up at DailyKos today. In June of 2005, Dem (The Next Hurrah), Melanie Mattson (Just a Bump in the Beltway) and The Reveres joined forces in an experiment in community public health planning we called The Flu Wiki. We were joined by our tech guru, the blogger, pogge (Peace, Order and Good Government, eh?), and after a time by anon_22. Anon_22 was “just another” wiki participant who chose her name arbitrarily, not thinking she would become a central figure. Based in the UK, she is a physician and soon became deeply engaged in the discussions that went on at the Wiki. Now she shares moderating duties with Dem and Melanie (The Reveres are still active with Wiki policy but spend their available time here at Effect Measure). This is just the way we wanted the Wiki to work and Flu Wikians have formed all sorts of autonomous affinity groups, one of which is responsible for the current Flu Pandemic Awareness Week. You can read some of the history of The Flu Wiki here, recounted in a reply we made to a librarian who challenged the authority of this kind of new media.
As DemFromCT notes at DailyKos, that battle is now decisively over with:
[snip]
Well, a year later, we’ve been cited by Science, the World Bank, BBC, PBS, WHO (to name a few) and this week, by the CDC [who has just started a blog of its own].
So CDC is finally catching on. They recently participated in a panel discussion on new media and their implications for Federal health communications programs. Here’s some of an account by one of the participants, Craig Lefebvre, whose blog Social Marketing is a wealth of interesting information on the new media and health:
These are mostly good developments. The last bullet point, above, is somewhat worrisome, however. The commercial world tends to be behind the curve, not ahead of it. Being ahead of the curve in a world where things move as swiftly as new media is essential. Unfortunately, this attitude of the federal health communicators is another example of a charcteristic tentativeness at a time when decisiveness is more appropriate.
But we’ll take what we can get. We welcome CDC to the Blogosphere.
Just as in PFAW, we need to involve livejournal, MySpace, YouTube (video), etc. if we want participation.
bump
Dr Dave – at 09:42 Would you send me a copy also? ssol1232000 at yahoo dot com
Thank you.
bump
The original story is here, with comments.
Specially important to read are mpb’s comments which I copy below - thanks for the specific permision.
I’m disappointed in what CDC (and UNC) has done with the PanFlu webcast and interactive forum. Webcasts are always a problem for those of us on dial-ups (although this was not too bad).
The presentation was a good concise summary. However, none of the questions submitted for the hour’s webcast were transferred over to the forum. The forum was not really prominent; few used it (maybe few knew of the webcast) and interest quickly died. It seemed to be (was presented in a manner of) a one-off.
Public Health Grand Rounds PanFlu
The other problem, which goes to the larger issue of who prepares and who uses the “social” Internet for preparedness, is that none of the discussion is about communities driving the inquiries; what happens if one doesn’t have advanced governmental capacity in health (e.g., most tribal governments and frontier and remote communities. NC and California and Wash state are not frontier governments); if schools have not trained a critical thinking population? We seem to have a huge number of MySpace users (300+?) given our regional population (20,000) but no one uses it to ask why the Fire Chief doesn’t think preparation is useful or to ensure the designated City Council member shows up for PanFlu briefings or to call the “Bird Flu Hotline” to find out if they know how to answer the phone.
There is a scale factor also— a thousand people urging city hall to do something in Boise or NY state or Des Moines can be heard; but the comparable number for us is something like 1 or 2.
1 or 2 people without complementary resources are not effective.
Web 2 is only a component of communication. Ironically, many traditional communities have a long history of complex non face to face communication; very few institutions have been willing to look at how that works in order to make the Internet more effective.
CDC may have a blog now, but public health agencies and academic departments and NGOs still operate from the top down and require supplication from communities. There are 2 main problems with this approach—the science and health is incomplete, by definition, without the other experts fully involved and 2) it’s us who are frontier not only in sparse population density (400 miles from Wal-Mart; 3000 miles from the nearest active nuclear test-site) but we also are the first to spot many environmental and infectious illnesses, before it hits suburbia.
So, how to press the Feds and states and tribes and universities to get going?
Posted by: mpb | October 15, 2006 07:16 PM
mpb: Good points, all. Have you raised them over at The Flu Wiki?
Posted by: revere | October 15, 2006 07:36 PM
Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time yet to figure out wikis so that I would be contributing and not occupying electrons.
[One other thing I forgot to mention was trying to get updated test results. The US Fish & Wildlife S site does not identify how to sign up for news releases; there are no feeds for them, either, as far as I could figure out. After all the hullabaloo about the bird testing, the only way I could find and post results (days or weeks before the state and local news media) was via Google news searches, which I then had to track down to verify.]
Posted by: mpb | October 15, 2006 11:40 PM
mpb, can I copy your message above into http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.CDCArticleOnNewMediaAndFluWiki please?
For those here who may not know, there are two different things over at Flu Wiki: One is wiki pages, our structured information space, with pages full of content and links, at fluwikie.com. The other is the forum, our conversation space, with sequential postings in which people start or follow a conversation, at fluwikie2.com. You need not use any sophisticated mark-up language to contribute to the forum!
Sometimes wiki pages and forum threads are linked to each other. A small example is http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.LengthOfDisease which is linked to and from http://www.fluwikie.com/pmwiki.php?n=Consequences.PandemicWaveInASpreadsheet
Things sort of feed into each other quite nicely. We help the CDC and they can use the Flu Wiki. The enemy is out there, and so are the oportunities.
Posted by: lugon | October 16, 2006 06:36 AM
mpb
“Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time yet to figure out wikis so that I would be contributing and not occupying electrons”
Just a quick response to let you know that the easiest way to contribute to the FluWiki is to go to the forum http://www.fluwikie2.com/index.php?n=Forum.Forum and post comments, which you can do at the bottom of any discussion thread, pretty much like this one. Comments are read by a lot of people and useful ones are often re-written to the wiki by others, either by request of the author or just spontaneously!
Posted by: anon_22 | October 16, 2006 07:10 AM
Please do. If you can keep the link to http://ykalaska.uniblogs.org I’d appreciate it.
Regarding academics vs governmental openness to technology (ideas)-- I have experience on all sides. The intellectual diffusion is mostly in one-direction (circular and digging ever deeper). Some disciplines are worse than others. I am comfortable stating that the absolutely worse situation was as a tribal scientist in remote communities dealing with CDC, ATSDR, EPA, UC-LANL, UAF, states of Alaska and NM, et al. But it barely surpasses the academic and research lithifications (I’ve had an NIH proposal ranked high enough to fund that year but yet be the only one not funded, a decision made at the director’s level on academic field of study grounds.) Those most open to new ideas have been those, such as secretaries, lab techs, unpaid custodians and health eds who don’t have status to lose.
“Rural Charm”
I wrote this summary based upon experience in the highway department as the public involvement coordinator (NEPA requirements, when paper ruled). As institutions learn to respond to the Internet, they will similarly learn to respond only to those who know how to supplicate the system. We don’t have collaboration with communities as colleagues. We “venture out” not live amongst.
Intellectual heterosis works, but it is often difficult to be that courageous.
Posted by: mpb | October 16, 2006 07:18 PM
There are other comments but I didn’t copy them over.
See, mpb, that wasn`t so hard,was it? Welcome.
This discussion about Google news now presenting blogs as news sources, http://lorelle.wordpress.com/ http://tinyurl.com/yxhf5q might be apropros (whatever) because I’ve been using the news alerts for understanding risk communication and perception (and because we do not get the results back from our birds).
Recently, there has been an escalation of Birds! Alaska! death! because of the LA Times article which was morphed through what Google calls news into Birds! Alaska! Eskimos cause Death! [and once again Government-doctors-health-unsuspecting Natives/minorities]
Could be interesting for someone to examine this phenomenon. We once relocated the Aleut/Unangan for the public good (WWII) and others (TB in the 1950s and 60s). There are enough government conspiracies about H5N1 and enough ethnic prejudice already.
Goggle maybe news continues. I’ve posted the summaries at the original blog, Lorelle vanFossen http://tinyurl.com/yxhf5q
Google news alerts are now alerting to comments in blogs about Google news presenting blogs as news sources….