BTW, it’s available now: http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Defense_Tech_Papers.htm. I’m reading it currently. So far, the 41-page research paper seems to have substance to me, and I don’t think any amount of promotion or teasing, or brief Wired article reaction to it can really claim to have made it obsolete.

I don’t so much blame the self-promotionalists for this trend. The editors, bloggers and organizers who promote these brands, such as #Goverati, at their events and in their articles because it is a convenient, buzz-worthy shortcut to reporting on what for many is a subtle, complex issue – these are the people I have to wonder what they are doing.

I fully understand letting a select few preview for purposes of feedback, etc. This I don’t get. Someone enlighten me.

But this is just based on the regular changes in how its promoted. Just two days ago most people hadn’t even heard there was a co-author, and now that there is some heat not only is there one, but a highly esteemed one that we would be foolish to question. It would be less humorous if it weren’t true.

I’m trying to figure out where you even got your premise and where your criticism came from. Was it being critical for the sake of being critical?

Until I read the report, which I have no doubt will be elegant and clearly presented, I will have to rely on the Wired review http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/04/wtf-military-we.html, which describes a “Gov 2.0 for Dummies” whose quality is not in its innovation of thought, but in clearly communicating pre-established ideas already common in the community.

A scholarly contribution, certainly – but in a larger context, not the fodder for which it has been used.

To go back to the original post, it’s clear the 15,000 word version of this paper does not suggest or come to the conclusion outlined by the above premise

Forgive me, but how is that clear since no one has ponied up the paper, despite a request to do so. I will agree that until the paper comes to the public eye, we have no idea what’s in it. That doesn’t make it clear in any way at this point.

“It is not useful to simply put out generic information about “information sharing” and suggest blogs, wikis and the like are the solution to the problem.”

has strayed so far from what happened in the comments section.

Anyway.

To go back to the original post, it’s clear the 15,000 word version of this paper does not suggest or come to the conclusion outlined by the above premise (nor is it a “Whitepaper”), and we should all wait for the full research paper to be released publicly before commenting on it. It’s dangerous to form an opinion on something before having all the facts or before doing our research.

(Do I need to remind anyone about the WMDs in Iraq and what that caused? I digress.)

The only people, it seems to me, who have any useful/knowledgeable opinion in this entire thread that are on topic are Anthony Watkins and Noel Dickover. And of course Mark, but since he’s one of the authors we can assume he’s biased. I look forward to reading the full-length paper.

Mark, I don’t operate under the premise of whether people like me or not, or whether they like this blog or not. This is not a game. Government 2.0 is not a game. If, and only if, the bullshit being espoused by most of the “experts” takes hold in the government, I fear it will do more harm than good. And we all know that things that take hold in government rarely go away. So… this is not a game. I am not trying to win a popularity contest, unlike you. I could care less.

I’ve been in IT, Information Systems/Information Sharing community for over twenty years and have experience supporting multiple government agencies. Dr. D. is very eloquent and entertaining, but also understands MLM and Social Media. But, who is the expert? The one that can architect/design and implement one of these solutions or the one that understands the concepts and the necessary organizational change management?

The truth is that both are necessary and if you have someone that can do both, that’s even better! But, in respect to the author that started this dialog it’s time for the rubber to meet the road. Let’s hear more about connecting the 50,000′ view to architectural implementation in complex environments.

The paper is not just a recommendation for wikis and blogs as the silver bullet to all government’s problems. The paper lays out a foundation for the types of sharing that our government does today and presents several case studies about how social media has already had a large impact at home and abroad. It lists challenges to using Social Media in the government space and ends with recommendations. It is a research paper and is therefore meant to drive thought, not solve tactical problems (really, who is expecting a paper called Social Software and National Security to solve their day-to-day problems?).

For those of you familiar with 2.0, you will read a lot of stuff you already know. However, I think it’s placed in an original context that makes you look at our problems from a different angle. The paper probably won’t do much for experts like Andrea (not being facetious), but it will add a great deal of understanding to many that serve Government who don’t know what social media is or how it could possibly matter to national security. And just because your organization is in the social media space doesn’t mean everyone of its employees understands its importance. Many are just jumping on the bandwagon or following orders.

Lastly, I want to note that Mark isn’t the only author of this paper. He wrote it with Dr. Linton Wells II, who has a long and impressive resume in defense. I would think a former Acting Assistant Secretary and DoD Chief Information Officer knows something about what really matters in the DoD in regards to information sharing. All that to say, I don’t think this paper was just about someone trying to get fame without any consideration for actually adding value to the discussion.

Everyone should also realize that this paper has a very experienced and distinguished co-author, who by far outworks, outclasses, and outsmarts everyone commenting here, including me. Here is a nice story on the paper that came out late this afternoon on NextGov (he is interviewed): http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090415_8127.php