Hi Michael,

Thanks for your reply. I think when you say 'our culture' it might be speaking from the US perspective where (from what I've heard), civil society is less respected than government, business or the military. However from a UK perspective, civil society is the most respected. Of course, respect may not translate into 'attention and resources', I want to point out that realities differ around the world (for which I don't claim to speak for!).

What I do know is that running a small company whos primary purpose is to 'help people have a fair say in shaping their world' (and profit is only a means to have a broader impact - if there is profit!) is that the 'resources and attention' you speak of being showered on business is almost non-existent since the company doesn't qualify for funding related to its purpose and it doesn't maximise profit which is what attracts investors.

I respect and understand the concern that for-profits could come to dominate this space, although there are ways of handling it. On the other hand the creativity and collaboration that could arise from opening it up a little would be a powerful force for positive change.

Part of the work I do is to advice non-profits (I only work with non-profits) on setting up online communities like this one, and most non-profit managers constantly want to control things up front rather than open things up and intervene when abuse occurs. I almost always advise ('almost' because there are exceptions for venerable people using communities) that a community is kept open and unrestricted with clear guidelines on the principles and objectives of the community and that abuse is dealt with as it occurs. A few years back Greenpeace International had a clobal 'cyber-activist' community and they mentioned that of the few hundred-thousand people they had (this was 2000/2001), they only had to intervene once. There were other edge cases but in almost all other cases the community dealt with it.

I also want to challenge the 'floodgates' argument (often called the slippery slope argument) which is only valid if you have no control over the community. However ultimately, you can put a stop to things whenever you wish so I'm not yet convinced :-)

I didn't realise you filter the non-profits that are entered as that strengthens the case as your are managing the growth (which is perfectly reasonable to do!). Also - your technical points sound reasonable - and I would add it would be good to filter on the principles or impact of an organisation rather than just the type since type tells one very little.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't expect instant results (as we generally can't for sustainability), I just wanted to express the disconnect I experienced between the vision and the current reality. Of course - to succeed - you need to focus on something so I'd rather it starts somewhere than not at all - and that is what NCI has done with WiserEarth - so congrats on that!

I look forward to working with the community to explore and clarify the metrics / process/ criteria by which every organisation is judged by its purpose and impact rather than its organisational type.

Cheers,

Duane

Hi - bowo directed me to a conversation about this very topic at:
http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/9775e0601b61f9ecbe146df704e77beb
(for any one else who comes across my rant and wants to comment)

Thanks bobo!