Social Software Use in the Intelligence Community: Interview with Mr. Chris Rasmussen

Check out the interview with Mr. Chris Rasmussen of NGA on emarv’s blog, discussing the Intelligence Community’s use of social software tools, such as their wiki, Intellipedia. It’s worth your time!

My Interview with Executive Biz

I did an “executive spotlight” interview with Executive Biz October 11, 2007. See here for my interview on Web 2.0 and the future of Intellipedia.

Clearing Up Misperceptions of Intellipedia, the Intelligence Community’s Wiki

There are many reasons why Intellipedia is a valuable tool for the Intelligence Community. If I had to summarize the reasons in one sentence, I’d say: Intellipedia provides a place where the community can pool its resources and integrate its collective knowledge in an interlinked environment on a particular issue. However, since its inception in April 2006, many criticisms remain. The good news is they all have answers. This blog addresses the following three criticisms: (1) seniors won’t use it; (2) it perpetuates bad information; and (3) its never really useable.

Problem 1: Seniors Won’t Use It

As hard as it is to imagine (I’m in my mid-twenties), there was a time when there were no word processors to type reports, or email to send messages. Information was typed and distributed hard copy. So, like wikis and blogs today, people feared these new emerging technologies. Senior-level employees were offended to be asked to type their reports themselves—after all, they were hired to think, not type. And email was seen as a manager’s nightmare. Anyone could send a message to anyone without going through the manager and team leader—unheard of! General James Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a case in point. During his tenure at U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) this “four star Blogger” created a rank-neutral blog for his entire command so anyone could post information, and he would post back. Imagine that. E-3’s communicating directly with a four-star. This was an astonishing move, especially from someone who comes from a chain-of-command culture. But what’s interesting is what initially happened. Only majors, colonels, and other senior-level managers and NCO’s were posting because they told their lower-ranked employees that they were not allowed to participate. But Cartwright wouldn’t accept that, and sent a message:

“The metric is what the person has to contribute, not the person’s rank, age, or level of experience. If they have the answer, I want the answer. When I post a question on my blog, I expect the person with the answer to post back. I do not expect the person with the answer to run it through you, your OIC, the branch chief, the exec, the Division Chief and then get the garbled answer back before he or she posts it for me. The Napoleonic Code and Netcentric Collaboration cannot exist in the same space and time. It’s YOUR job to make sure I get my answers and then if they get it wrong or they could have got it righter, then you guide them toward a better way… but do not get in their way.”

STRATCOM has continued that message, citing that command hierarchy does not apply to information. “We have a command chain, but not an information chain,” explained Lieutenant General Robert Kehler , USAF, Deputy Commander USTRATCOM.

So, in my view, we are getting the same resistance that we’ve seen in the past. Change is hard. Transformations are hard. But the Wiki and Blog are here to stay.

Solution: It’s not a matter of if seniors will use it; it’s a matter of when.

Problem 2: It’s never finished, and thus never usable.

Critics claim wiki’s lack clear indicators of the status of an article—and to be honest, they are somewhat correct. This is something were still trying to come to grips with. However, since Intellipedia keeps track of every edit as a separate version with a unique URL (see here for example), contributors of an article can determine and reference the latest “reviewed and vetted” version of an article, even though edits are continuously made. Another option is to take the vetted information and publish it in a static document, sort of like taking a snap shot at any given time, and then reference that version.

Solution: Processes are evolving that do indicate the article’s status.

Problem 3: It Perpetuates Bad Information

There are weaknesses and strengths with everything. Intellipedia is no different. One advantage of the traditional approach—that is, static “finished” reports—is they go through a vetting process. You know product “x” from organization “y” has standards “z.” And thus, you know the degree to which you can rely on that information and analysis. However, we all know that these reports, which are reviewed hierarchically, still have errors. Intellipedia is reviewed or “vetted” too, but in a different way—it’s “peer-reviewed” horizontally. The only real difference is static reports aren’t released until they’re “finished” but information in a wiki is posted and then edited.

So the first thing we need to come to grips with is posted information (information visible on a virtual network) should no longer mean it’s static or finished, or at least not in a wiki. It’s simply the latest version of what’s known on a given issue. But unlike static reports, the wiki is up to date, and allows anybody to find and fix errors quickly. It’s essentially a “living document” prone to change as new information arises.

Second, Intellipedia has an alert feature, so individuals interested in an article can “watch” it and be alerted when the article has changed. Users are even provided a double-framed page (see here for example), which highlights changes between the old and new version. As the number of eyeballs increase on an article, the quality increases.

Finally, as discrepancies arise, users can add little tags indicating there is a discrepancy and they can be brought up on the article’s discussion page where debate is conducted transparently. Unlike Wikipedia, Intellipedia has no anonymous contributors. Every edit is attributed to somebody. This eliminates the vandalism issues Wikipedia deals with.

Solution: It Perpetuates Continuous Self-Correction through Peer-Review.

Taken as a whole, Intellipedia has many more advantages. It’s up to date. It represents the community’s knowledge on a specific issue. Anyone can correct errors. Multiple eyeballs and attributable edits ensure errors entering the space are eliminated. And vetted versions can be supplied by static links. By the way, if you saw an error in this blog, wouldn’t you want to fix it?

See Also:

1. Reliability of Wikipedia
2. Cal Andrus Discusses Pros and Cons of Intellipedia
3. How Intelligence Agencies Use Social Software – Presentation by Chris Rasmussen