Those in the Washington, DC area this week may want to join MixedInk at the Center for American Progress’ Internet Advocacy Rountable.  This month’s event addresses “Crowdsourcing Message and Policy Development,” a topic we think and write about a LOT (as regular readers of our blog know).

Joining me on the panel will be Michael Yaki, the National Platform Director for the Obama Campaign this year, and Brian Young, Senator John Kerry’s Internet Director.

Here’s the event description:

In 2006, with less money and less name recognition than his opponent for Senate, incumbent Orrin Hatch, Pete Ashdown took an innovative approach to his campaign website. Harking back to a tradition of elected representatives being delegates of their constituents will (rather than trustees), Ashdown included a wiki on his website where voters could edit and develop his campaign platform. This collaborative process, made easy by the web, foreshadowed a growing practice of letting large groups of citizens to collaborate on developing political messages and policy platforms.

But why should we let the crowd do this? According to James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, large groups of people are simply smarter than small groups and individuals, on average. For example, Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, in The Spiral of Silence, shows that long before asking people in surveys “who they will vote for” can effectively predict an upcoming election, asking them “who they think will win” will get the prediction right.

Join us on Thursday, October 16, 2008, from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm for the Internet Advocacy Roundtable as we discuss crowdsourcing message and policy platforms with a panel of speakers who have managed crowdsourcing programs and developed new software to make these programs more effective.

The Center for American Progress is a progressive think tank, but people of all political stripes with an interest in the democratization of politics and policy are welcome.  Note that an RSVP is required.

See here for details:

http://www2.americanprogressaction.org/o/507/t/124/event/index.jsp?event_KEY=20520

Hope to see you there!

In a post earlier this summer, I wrote about the barriers to adopting new democratic technologies: the powers that be are reluctant to cede control, and the trial and error process of testing social technology takes time.  In order to overcome these and build a more participatory, web-based public sphere, innovators must delicately balance the risks and rewards that accompany new, more democratic forms of user engagement.

The different approaches can be grouped into the categories of venting, crowdsourcing, and crowd empowerment.

Venting. An organization that wants to engage stakeholders can get surprisingly far simply by providing a forum for its users to express themselves and interact with each other – in essence, to vent.

Even without committing to incorporate, respond to, or give prominence to what users have to say, an organization can enhance its image and build a relationship with stakeholders simply by giving them an outlet.  Since only a small segment of very passionate users will bother to read the ventings of others, the organization can engage users in this way without giving up real control of their message and without assuming much risk from stakeholders who criticize their host.

Most comment systems and discussion forums fall into this category.  Comments allow users to react and converse with one another beneath a blog post or news article.  But comments are given far less prominence than the original content they address, as they often are only accessible by a “view comments” link [link to view comments], they are located further down the page, and they are often visually distinct from the main content.  Thus, comments provide an outlet for social venting but do not provide users with significant control.

Crowdsourcing. A more substantive way of enabling users to have significant real-world impact is to draft them in the processes of writing, research and analysis that are part of an organization’s core work.

Talking Points Memo asks readers to search through thousands of documents to find useful information relevant to current political issues.  Assignment Zero invited the public to participate in writing a long-form news article, for example, by conducting interviews and providing transcripts and quotes to the professional journalists.  A pilot program run by the USPTO solicits citizens’ help in evaluating patent applications.

These initiatives allow content submitted by citizens to move out of the commenting and feedback backwaters.  Unlike with pure venting, here the crowd’s collective effort can actually help to shape institutional policies and public debates.

But the crowd’s control is still limited – these initiatives still leave decision-making power in the hands of the organizer or host.  For example, when Mitt Romney’s campaign asked supporters to produce a TV ad and John Kerry’s campaign asked his email list to submit radio ads, the campaigns collected content from users and narrowed the options down internally.  Only then did they let their supporters choose the winning entry from among a small number of options they had determined were “safe.”

Empowerment. While the previous categories ultimately leave the designation of content as significant or impactful to the organizer, a few bold initiatives actually let the community make that decision itself and pledge to stick with the results, even if counterproductive to their institutional interests.

Most of these, including Digg and Wikipedia, were structured democratically from the start and have grown specifically because they are participatory.  But there have also been a few large organizations to introduce democratic policies despite the risks.

MyStarbucksIdea and Dell’s IdeaStorm, which let users submit and vote on ideas to determine which are popular, are excellent examples of this, as Vanessa wrote recently.  The prominence of an idea is determined solely by users’ votes, and users have their own interests, rather than the company’s interests, at heart.  So, plenty of criticism of each company and its products has risen to the top of the idea list.  For example, one of the most popular ideas was from a user named “MsTexas”:

Instead of spending mucho $$ on advertising, just lower the prices a little. Old customers will return, new customers who are frightened by everyone who talks about “$5.00 for a cup of coffee!?!” will be lured in, and existing customers will feel ’special’.

Though Starbucks is responding to other ideas above and below this one, it’s unlikely the company will act on this suggestion – and they would obviously rather not have attention brought to how high their prices are.  Yet by allowing in the criticism, Starbucks assures users that it’s the users who are in control.  That breeds trust, which in turn drives greater involvement with the site.  The exchange builds the company’s brand and reinforces customer loyalty among those who participate, and even among those who don’t.  It also allows Starbucks to see which of the many obvious changes are customer priorities (like free wifi), as well as giving the company great ideas they might not have thought of themselves.  My personal favorite:

For the iced coffee drinks. Make them with ice cubes made from coffee. This way the coffee does not become diluted and tastes so much better all the way to the bottom of the cup!

—-

These three models offer a ladder of participatory engagement and risk.  As our tool is flexible, MixedInk can be applied within each paradigm – and we expect it will be.  But over time, we will encourage organizations to pursue the most democratic approach possible, moving from the venting model that gives users a largely symbolic outlet, to the empowerment model that places real control in their hands.  While it will take time for our collective norms to shift toward a much more participatory economy, politics and media, the rewards clearly outweigh the risks.

As we mentioned, the Netroots (i.e. online progressives) have been using MixedInk to draft their platform online.  This was the first time our beta tool’s been used by the general public, so this was a big moment for us - and it kicked butt!

Whether you agree with the Netroots or not, there’s no denying that the final result is a remarkably eloquent 29 pages of rhetoric, ranging from the lofty to the highly specific, that seems to capture the community’s viewpoint pretty well.  Check it out!

www.NetrootsPlatform.org

The project’s been covered in the political and tech blogosphere, including DailyKos, MyDD, and TechPresident. [UPDATE: it's also been written up at ABCNews.com and Wired!]

From Nancy Scola’s write-up at Tech President:

How do you effectively harness the wisdom of the crowds when the goal is political ideas, not pinning down the weight of an ox at a county fair? [link added]

Does MixedInk point to a way of governing that effectively harnesses the intelligence and energy of bigger groups than we’re used to? It might offer some direction to a campaign like Obama’s that claims to tap into the wisdom of, for example, more than 300 foreign policy advisors. Managing all that smarts can’t be easy.

Here’s the press release we put together with a few members of the Netroots Platform committee.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PROGRESSIVE ONLINE ACTIVISTS ENGAGE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ON POLITICAL PLATFORM

Netroots Develop Policy Platform Aimed at Influencing Obama/DNC Platform Using Participatory Online Process

WASHINGTON, DC, August 13th, 2008 - Members of the “Netroots” - a loosely affiliated group of progressive bloggers, activists and private citizens-released their political platform this week, after three weeks of online collaboration.

The Netroots Platform was first proposed by Jerome Armstrong, a prominent progressive blogger and founder of MyDD.com. “The idea was for the Netroots to speak to the Obama Campaign and the DNC with a collective voice.” The project seemed to take on a life of its own after being introduced to the progressive blogosphere, as members of the Netroots used progressive community blogs, listservs, social networking sites and the MyBarackObama site to invite greater participation and keep each other updated about the Platform’s progress.

The platform was developed entirely online at www.NetrootsPlatform.org, a site where anyone was able to participate in the process and contribute their ideas. MixedInk, an Internet startup, created the democratic, collaborative writing tool that was used for the project. The company aims to empower the public to participate meaningfully and democratically in discussions once limited only to political insiders. “The process itself was truly a metaphor for the Netroots ideals of openness, transparency and democracy,” said Armstrong.

The final Netroots Platform includes 10 different policy planks addressing everything from National Security & Foreign Policy to the Economy to Food & Agriculture, in addition to an introductory “General Principles” section. Community members contributed by writing new planks, editing existing submissions, and remixing the best ideas from different versions to create new ones. Contributors also rated planks on a scale of 1 to 10, and the version with the highest average rating within each category at the end became part of the final platform.

While the official DNC draft platform and the Netroots platform overlap significantly on some policies, including net neutrality, the patients’ bill of rights, and greater federal investment in renewable energies, other policies advocated by the Netroots - amending the recently passed FISA bill, military budget cuts, and the abolishment of the electoral college - diverge significantly from the official Democratic party line.

“The people who participated support Senator Obama overall, despite some differences in our approach and results,” said Ellen Mendlow, one of the platform’s contributors and a member of the organizing committee. “Our platform is unique because of the collaborative way it was drafted. It’s a very positive step forward that we are part of the process, and I think we are all looking forward to developing even more rigorous opportunities for two-way dialogue between citizens and our government in the future.”

According to MixedInk, over the course of the process, thousands of people visited the site, 246 registered, and 164 contributed a total of 167 planks and over 925 ratings. “The Netroots Platform covers general principles as well as very specific language advocating the expansion of “the Nunn-Lugar program to guard nuclear weapons” and “catalyzing innovation by private space entrepreneurs.” “Some really smart and well-informed people participated in the process,” said David Stern, co-founder of Mixedink.com. “The fact that the most articulate ideas rose to the top shows how wise a crowd can be.”

The platform site launched on July 18th, in tandem with two workshops held at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin to introduce the idea and discuss the process. It ended three weeks later, on August 9th, with the submission of the platform to the National Democratic Platform Committee. The committee has acknowledged receiving the document and will be holding a conference call with the activists shortly.

The Obama campaign had previously asked supporters to contribute their platform ideas through its “Listening to America” initiative. Small groups of supporters met all across the country to develop short planks to be submitted through the campaign’s website.

“This project dovetailed nicely with the Listening to America platform sessions but with a spin that’s unique and that fits the collaborative, ensemble nature of the blogosphere perfectly,” said Mendlow. “We’re fully transparent and democratic in our approach to politics.”

# # #

About the Netroots Platform Committee

Support for the Netroots Platform was loosely organized by an ad-hoc committee of citizens that formed at the Netroots Nation conference held in Austin, Texas, in late July. It initially consisted of six individuals and grew to nine members over the course of the project.

To contact the committee or schedule an interview with one of its members, please email netrootsplatformcommittee [at] gmail [dot] com.

About MixedInk

MixedInk LLC is an Internet startup that provides an online tool for democratic, collaborative writing. MixedInk enables large groups of people to brainstorm and express a collective point of view by weaving their best ideas and opinions together.

The company was founded in April 2007. After launching in September 2008, its application will be available for free at www.mixedink.com. A white-label, enterprise version of the service will also allow organizations to integrate the application within their own websites.

For more information about MixedInk, or to schedule an interview with one of the founders, email press [at] mixedink [dot] com.

Got ideas for how MixedInk could be useful to YOUR group?  Send us an email at info [at] mixedink [dot] com!

==========

Update - an fairly heated exchange about the Netroots Platform is happening on some of the leading progressive blogs:

Chris Bowers at Open Left

Natasha Chart at MyDD

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD

In searching for a hosting solution, we were surprised by the lack of trustworthy information online to help people decide between them.  We set up a quick survey and are posting the results here.  There were 27 usable responses (the rest were missing too much information to use).   So the results are far from statistically significant, but hopefully they’re useful to others in the same situation.  It’s available as a Google Spreadsheet here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pmbNeL2NbqdCUSddkHmCAbw.

Here’s some snapshots — the document itself is a bit overwhelming to look at.

The following hosting services received “excellent” ratings for uptime, speed, and customer service:

• Alticon (2 ratings)
• Bob
• Contegix
• Edgeweb Hosting
• ExchangeGuru (2 ratings)
• Grassroots Enterprise
• SoftLayer
• Verizon Business FIOS

The following hosting services received a mix of “excellent” and “good” ratings for uptime, speed, and customer service:

• ActiveHost
• Amazon (EC2+S3)
• Aplus
• VPSlink
• Web Hosting Solutions

I just stumbled on this article Marc Ambinder wrote in The Atlantic Monthly last month about how Barack Obama may “transform governance just as he has transformed campaigning.”  This little nugget stood out and I thought it was worth sharing:

Communication and transparency are virtues only up to a point; as students of bureaucracies know, both eventually become an enemy to efficiency. Moreover, if [a] presidency invited more input than it could reasonably weigh and respond to, it would quickly squander the networking capital that the campaign has built.

MixedInk’s was built precisely to address these challenges.  We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.  Thanks, Marc!

Thirty family members and friends of the MixedInk team recently came together to test our software. It was very exciting to finally see MixedInk in action at this scale after much hard work and internal testing. Watching an interesting discussion take shape and participating in the eventual synergy that emerged over the five-day period was an extremely rewarding experience.

Together the participants addressed the following question: Is the US government ever justified in using torture? Why or why not?

(We chose this topic because we know people feel strongly about it. Having a topic that encourages vigorous discussion makes testing our software and concept easier).

Participants wrote, edited, and recombined responses to the topic throughout the test. With a total of 44 responses and 296 ratings in the end, the group had a vibrant brainstorming session and a fascinating exchange. Through a process of mixing and rating each other’s responses using MixedInk technology, the test participants collaboratively sculpted a collective opinion on the selected topic.

For those who are curious, we’ve pasted the text of the collective response below.

This is a major moment for MixedInk – this test provided definitive proof of our concept. We learned a ton from the test and are now tweaking old features and adding new ones based on the test and on the feedback we received. At this point, we plan to continue testing it with different and bigger groups – let us know if you’d like to help shape MixedInk by getting involved in future tests at testing@mixedink.com. We’d love to get your input!

No to Torture

In the wake of 9/11, we have begun to speak a new language. “Patriotism” means blind devotion to any government policy; to “support the troops” means to never question an interminable war; and “torture” means making the world safe for democracy. (heh, heh, heh). We are living in a world of contradictions and are facilitating it with a language of opposites. It is easier to accept an unwarranted war, corruption, and torture when they are cloaked in words like democracy, strength, and safety. But eventually we will run out of platitudes and be left with nothing but the bare truth of our actions.

Torture has fallen prey to the cover of new speak. By saying we’re protecting our way of life from terrorism, we have become terrorists ourselves and what once was abhorrent to Americans has become acceptable. The question in real speak, though, is what security do we truly gain from the use of torture? Of the multitude of tools in our security arsenal, torture is one that has been shown to fail — people will say anything to get themselves out of the situation. This is particularly true in the case of terrorism, where people are often motivated by martyrdom, and just a bit more courage as a tortured prisoner can earn a handsome payoff in the afterlife. In embracing torture as a society, we therefore lose not only our honor, but also our precious resources as we waste time and money following false leads.

Even if torture were shown to be an effective information-gathering tool, however, it still would not be a sound security policy. When we commit torture against prisoners, we place our own soldiers at great risk as we forego our authority to demand protection for them. Today other countries can easily follow our lead in playing semantic tricks to determine where the Geneva Conventions apply. If that were the case, and our soldiers were being tortured at the hands of another countrys interrogators, be sure that this discussion would need not occur; our collective outrage would be unanimous.

More importantly, we cannot discuss torture without examining what it means to be part of a society that allows it. Many claim that we need to rethink our domestic policies, and even internationally-accepted norms, given the new threats we face. We disagree. In fact, it is only at times when we are scared for our safety that we must recall the importance of our civil liberties. It is during these times that it is easiest to forgo our most important ideals for the illusion of safety and expedient answers to complex challenges.

The American justice system relies upon the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. And we have a very high bar for guilt; a jury must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. The implicit understanding is that we, as a society, would prefer to let a guilty person go free than wrongly punish someone who is innocent. We depend upon our right to due process of law to ensure that our government does not overstep its bounds. When we allow torture of someone suspected of a crime (or suspected to be privy to critical information), we corrode this deep foundation of our country by exacting punishment based on mere suspicion. Not only does it undoubtedly lead to the torture of many people with no, or little, connection to terrorist networks, but it also leads to a dangerous temptation to blur the distinctions. And just like that, we begin down a slippery slope of disintegrating civil liberties.

Nearly everyone agrees torture is generally wrong, but there is still a great temptation to allow torture as a last resort in extreme cases. Torture, however, is not an acceptable government policy even in these scenarios. We have seen time and time again that seemingly normal people can do awful things. We saw it during Milgrim’s famous psychology experiments, we witnessed it during the Holocaust, and we stood speechless more recently when we learned of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. If we condone even a single case of torture, how will we then stop it from expanding? Who is to be the judge? Any policy that allowed torture would be subject to abuse. Enforcement is extremely difficult to imagine, given that these prisoners would be punished without the benefit of being tried in court, and an interrogator could always argue there was good reason to believe the prisoner had valuable information.

There is a short list of countries that permit torture, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Uzbekistan. It is not a club that the

United States should wish to join. As we seek to remain a world leader, we must remember what it means to be American and the moral authority it could command. We should not throw it all away in exchange for nothing more than a second-rate intelligence tool. It’s time to speak clearly and realize that torture debases not only the victim but also the core of all we, in real talk, hold precious in America.

As is clear from this example, the group of our friends and family that created this lean to the political left. Note that MixedInk is emphatically nonpartisan. Our tool will be available to any group wishing to express itself together regardless of its opinion.

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the second annual YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, where over 1500 members of the “progressive netroots” – a term that encompasses Democratic bloggers and internet activists – gathered to celebrate their successes and discuss what comes next. The conference provided the opportunity to meet some of the leading voices in the left half of the blogosphere as well as a chance to see some fantastic panels and presentations on what we can look forward to, technologically speaking, in the campaigns of the future.

As we hoped, it also turned out to be a great way to introduce MixedInk within the political sphere. We believe our platform could have a major impact on politics; the people I spoke with seemed equally excited. Looking back a year from now, I think we’ll find that the seeds for several pivotal partnerships were planted in Chicago.

Not surprisingly, one of the coolest moments of the conference was the candidate forum, where 7 of the 8 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination took questions from moderators and the audience on domestic policy, foreign affairs and general personal and political philosophy. The fact that this forum attracted such a high profile group of leaders speaks to the power that the progressive netroots have accumulated.

Regardless of one’s political outlook, a presidential primary debate like this is guaranteed to be compelling theater; there’s a 50% chance (or greater, if you believe current polls) that you’re watching the next US president. But this was no ordinary presidential debate.

The moderator, Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine, opened by saying, “We do normally ask that applause and reactions be kept till the end. We’re making no such request today [laughter]. I fear it’s too late, but I’m gonna ask you to remember that we are on a tight timeline and trying to get along with the program, and to the extent that you could limit the interruptions we would appreciate it…” This narrow opening was all the crowd needed.

Bai would soon regret having given the crowd free reign, and said as much joke that he was losing control [updated based on Matt's comment - see below]. This group refused to play the role of the passive audience. People acted pretty much the same as they might while watching an event like this on TV in the comfort of their homes – only now, the candidates could actually see and hear them.

Applause, laughter, jeering, hissing and booing all flowed freely. Senator Edwards, a crowd favorite, was constantly interrupted by applause, though he didn’t seem to mind. At one point, when facing a tough question, Senator Clinton made a stalling remark as she tried to come up with the right to say, and the crowd laughed at her outright! It was the sort of the remark a candidate might slide by with in a typical debate without someone to call it out, but this crowd wouldn’t tolerate even a hint of evasion. And Senator Dodd was booed loudly when he tried to explain his vote for Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The crowd even broke into song at one point – it was announced that Senator Obama was celebrating his birthday, so the audience serenaded him with a poorly coordinated (though very affectionate) rendition of Happy Birthday.

At first, all of this struck me as highly undignified. It was like a vaudeville show instead of a presidential debate – I half expected people to start throwing rotten tomatoes! Did the audience want our candidates to be treated like entertainers? We Americans are used to debates where candidates speak in paragraphs comprised of neat little sound bites memorized in advance, moderators tightly control the conversation, and audiences are powerless to interfere. Traditionally, they are opportunities for the candidates to tell us their positions on the issues and to compare and contrast their views with each other, without any interference from voters.

Gradually, I began to see the merits of this more participatory format, as I realized it was an offline translation of the blogosphere’s core principles. This crowd of online activists rejects the model of candidate as untouchable, deity-like avatar and instead treats its candidates as real people. If there’s no TV screen between us, why must we continue to act like we are separated from them by sound-proof, one-way glass?

The existence of the political blogosphere itself is premised on the notion that citizens should have a right to express opinions that matter – beyond merely voting once every four years. Flowing from this, the crowd seemed to stake the claim that we have the right to interact with our politicians through direct conversation, whereby they observe our reactions and respond in real-time – conventional notions of debate etiquette be damned. The netroots believes we can learn more about who a candidate is in this type of interactive format than from the canned speechifying that is a conventional debate.

This re-imagining of the debate structure is part of a seismic shift in our politics (and our media, and our consumption patterns, and…) toward a technology-enabled, two-way exchange of perspectives. We envision MixedInk as another tool in citizens’ arsenal – along with participatory debates like this one, blogs, YouTube videos, and a range of other platforms – to make their voices heard and to ensure their voices matter.

You can find video from the event, along with plenty of other YearlyKos footage, here.

An edited version of this post was published as a diary on Daily Kos

UPDATED: Matt Bai was kind enough to respond with an email. He gave me permission to republish what he wrote:

Hey David, thanks for the kind words and for sending me the link. I love what you wrote. I take strong exception to only one thing, which is your assertion that I regretted my announcement to the crowd and said as much. Couldn’t be less true. I was a big proponent of letting the crowd express itself, and I thought (and still think), as you do, that it was one of the best things about the forum. I completely agree with you–this is exactly the kind of wall the Internet helps us break down, and while some of my colleagues in the media found it “creepy” (I think that’s what Ana Marie Cox quoted someone as saying), I thought it was really fun and a lot more interactive. It also made me feel more at ease on stage. I did joke that I was losing control at one point, but I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Thanks for writing.

In addition to being a terrific writer, Matt Bai is part of a small minority of journalists that understands the transformation that’s taking place. It’s no wonder he was selected to moderate the YearlyKos forum as a representative of the mainstream media.

Most of the time, when you try out some new software, you are able to get the intended functionality out of the program - without significant learning time or technical issues, if you’re lucky. It does what you needed it to do, and that’s that.

On rare occasions, however, the process is almost magical: you try out the program, and your jaw drops when you realize how much power it gives you; how much more information is at your fingertips; how much faster, simpler, and more fun your life can be made by this previously irrelevant (to you) chunk of code.

We’ve been using Google Analytics and Crazy Egg on our blog since day one, and would definitely put these nifty little (free!!) tools in the latter category. Google Analytics allows us to track our site visitor data with a shocking degree of precision - by time spent on the site, by location, by browser used, by incoming link followed, by navigation pathways through the site, by Java version installed, and by a whole bunch of other characteristics (all anonymously, of course). And we’re not even using several of the more advanced features yet.

The most impressive thing about the program is how easy and fun it is to use. It’s got a super intuitive interface, and it’s full of interactive visualization tools like the one to the right, which shows where in the US our visitors came from during a brief period last month.

Similarly, Crazy Egg lets us see what visitors do with their mouse pointers as they browse the site using four main views. The “overlay” view shows how many times each of the links were clicked (shown below) as well as the site from which the viewer was referred; a “heatmap” shows where the most clicks on the page occurred, ranging from ‘hotspots’ in red to less popular links in blue; a new “confetti view” shows the top 15 referral sites, top 15 search terms, browsers, etc. of those who clicked; and the “list” view provides much of this information in exportable chart form.

Now that the initial wow factor has worn off, we don’t check our stats on Google Analytics or look at heat maps from Crazy Egg particularly often. (And don’t worry, we’re not stalking our readers, as our soon-to-be-posted privacy policy will confirm!) The real benefit of having these tools will come later, after we’ve launched MixedInk. We’ll need to see where people are coming from, which sites send them here, and how they navigate around the site, so that we can improve the user experience and grow our user base.

If you’re tech-savvy, this may not be news to you. You may rightly point out that there are more powerful programs out there (though not any free ones, as far as we are aware). But I hope this at least helped you relive your long-lost moments of technological awe.

If you’re not a techie, maybe this little love-fest will inspire you to try new software - including MixedInk, when the time comes. The potential payoffs of using well-designed software are worth it!

Welcome to the MixedInk blog!

MixedInk is a very cool new democratic tool that allows large groups of people to write collaborative opinions online. Our platform will fundamentally improve upon some of the groundbreaking technology that already exists in the collaborative writing world (we’ll be giving more detail later).

We’ll be releasing a beta version as soon as we can. We’ve introduced this blog in the early stages of this company, because we want to get your input while our site is still in development. We will also be sharing stories and thoughts about the startup process, programming, collaboration, and other relevant news.

By way of introduction, you’ll be hearing on the blog from me - Vanessa - as well as from David and Dan, my co-founders. We look forward to hearing back from you!