Between Athenians and Visigoths: what lies between polar positions in public discourse online

 

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (variously attributed – Google it)

 

Travels of badger - Ancient Agora of Athens with the Temple of Hephaestus

 

The Visigoth versus the Roman

 

In his graduation speech, Neil Postman characterised two groups from history, the Athenians and the Visigoths, each of which has since disappeared but has left their mark on subsequent cultures. For Postman, they were ideas, around which we could express values: Athenians exalted knowledge and the quest for it; while Visigoths placed themselves at the centre of the universe with no sense of community. We can see that the Athenians are the ‘goodies’ and the Visigoths are the ‘baddies’. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/06/athenians-and-visigoths-neil-postmans-graduation-speech/

We could observe that Athenians and Visigoths are evident in our face to face and online worlds, as Postman suggested, but this dichotomy obscures a more complex reality.  On a forum in the late 1990s, I shared the thought that the world could be divided into two types of people, those who thought that the world could be divided into two types of people and those who didn’t. I have since discovered that this isn’t an original observation but that’s no obstacle to applying the concept http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/07/two-classes/.

When the Athenians/ Visigoths goodies/baddies is used as a dualism to categorise people, we can lose the opportunity to explore ideas and behaviours that might be changed (in ourselves and in others).  If we were trying to understand Gamergate, then we could characterise Anita Sarkeesian as an Athenian exploring the tropes of women within games, and the anonymous people issuing death threats as Visigoths. Already, this could be a problem because people who had some (possibly valid) critique of Sarkeesian’s work might be polarised by my valorisation of her as an Athenian. Those who persist in seeing Gamergate as about ethical practice in gaming journalism would feel misrepresented. What interests me is what lies between the two extremes: We could use Athenians and Visigoths as a duality to explore the behaviours of people who are not at one extreme or another but that is personalising the issues rather looking at the behaviours. It seems to me to be pretty clear cut that people online issuing death threats should be investigated and prosecuted, and I would not waste my time trying to reason with them. It’s much less clear how to respond to behaviours such as deliberate false claims, accidental misunderstanding (I do this frequently) and misreporting that I see daily on traditional and social media.

Debates can quickly become polarised especially on short-form media like Twitter. Andy Baion analysed tweets from a 72 hour period to visualise acitivity on #gamergate on Twitter.

Each point is a single person in the #Gamergate universe, the lines connect who they follow, Andy Baion

He concluded that “Roughly 90–95% take a clear side either in favor or against Gamergate.” https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

Although #gamergate was not the only site of discussion about the issue, my observation from my search and from my slice of the Internet (inevitably skewed) confirmed that dialogue as Buber meant it was rare

where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between himself and them”.

Curious about who was aware of gamergate and more general hating against women online, on 15 October, I polled some of my more connected Facebook contacts:

“Dear FB contacts with an interest in things technical/ gaming, I am interested in what might have appeared in your socmed stream in the last 10 days – Ada Lovelace Day, Brianna Wu death threats, Kathy Sierra leaving Twitter, Anita Sarkeesian threatened with gun massacre at Utah State University? http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29616197

The response was interesting – there was very little awareness of most of these, with a few exceptions. I think the responses might be a bit different now that some of these issues have hit mainstream media but it does seem that neither social nor traditional media can be relied on to surface important stories quickly. Two contacts held a respectful and insightful exchange about #gamergate that certainly added to my understanding.  Another commented later

 “the reason why I as a bystander don’t tend to get involved in the debate is mainly because of the polarising language of those who challenge the harassment. It’s commonly that any white, CIS-gendered, middle-aged (gamer) male tends to get lumped in with the dickheads. I mean fine, if people want to do that, but then that means I’m not going to engage with either camp.” (he does not want to be named as he doesn’t want to be drawn into the debate)

So fierce exchanges can be taking place in separate echo chambers; or we may be unaware of issues because of the limitations of our networks and of traditional media; or we may be unwilling to engage with topics for various reasons.  Noelle-Neumann came up with the theory of the spiral of silence to explain the growth and spread of public opinion, and characterises the media as muting the minority in the spiral http://www.afirstlook.com/docs/spiral.pdf.  A recent Pew Internet report on research into discussion of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records confirms the Spiral of Silence, with people being less likely to discuss the issue on social media than they were in person http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/

Kate Bowles speaks of the difficulties of practicing generosity under pressure to take sides “Where we end up with this demand to take a stand, I think, is that our interactions with others become a constant, and exhausting, requirement to show ourselves as good before we speak. Even one of the most beautiful and courageous political interventions that I’ve seen all year couches itself in this way: which side are you on, friend, which side are you on? But if we accept this practice of camp loyalty as the minimum standard for being worth listening to, and no other, I think we’re also running some risks as these standards have to be expressed in terms of the grossest possible generalisation to work at all. And this means that we are already prepared to relinquish what is particular and complicated about any interaction between two people.” http://musicfordeckchairs.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/not-done-yet/

 

I think that polarisation might to contribute to ‘bystander’ behaviour of those whose views lie between the poles in a given debate.  In a previous post, I pondered some strategies for

  • We can look at how we can understand and appreciate the experiences of others by really listening
  • We can take a break like Kathy Sierra and Julie Pagano have done
  • We can challenge hostile and malignant cultures by
    • mocking them like #ghcmanwatch did
    • or when a grave injustice has occurred by campaigns like #justiceforLB

http://francesbell.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/homophily-intersectionality-and-institutional-cultures-as-played-out-on-social-media/

 

Increasing the diversity of our networks and the quality of the media that shape our opinions might help but we need collective approaches too I think.  But this presents its own challenges. The communities to which we are drawn can be in tension with the need for diversity as they will tend to promote conformity unless we are vigilant. I think we need to resist thinking of others as Visigoths and ourselves as Athenians, and acknowledge more complex combinations of Visigoth  and Athenian behaviours.

An Interactive Exploration of the Near Future in Educational Technologies

“The future is there… looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become.”

― William Gibson, Pattern Recognition

To be read in conjunction with Jenny’s post Higher Education in 2025

Jenny Mackness and I are giving a presentation with this title to Southampton University’s ILIaD Inaugural Conference on 3 November. Each of us will present a personal story, mine of a 19 year old learner and Jenny’s of a middle-aged academic in 2025, with the intention of provoking discussion with the audience on what the near future might be like in Higher Education. We are limited by our 20 minute time slot and we want to maximise audience participation.

As we say in the abstract for the presentation, the promise of the transformational impact of technology in Higher Education (HE) is yet to be fulfilled. And yet, how can we engage with the future in a dynamic environment to help us make change – or innovate in the language of ILIaD?

Mannermaa (1991) characterises the Scenarios paradigm of futures research as one that assumes that the future is not wholly predictable and constructs alternative futures.  These scenarios are not a prediction of what the future will look like but alternative versions that can spark our imagination.  Jenny and I have constructed two personal stories, inspired by elements of two of the ‘future of HE’ scenarios constructed by Bryan Alexander, namely “Two Cultures” (online and blended learning) and “Renaissance” (the reawakening of creativity, through emphasis on digital storytelling, social media and computer gaming).

The story I have written portrays a young person who might question many of the assumptions of Higher Education about what is innovative, what is the purpose and value of education and where and how learning takes place.

We are really looking forward to the discussion with participants on 3 November, and we will share their contribution with you on our blogs.

References/ Resources

Mannermaa, M. (1991) “In search of an evolutionary paradigm for futures research”, Futures, 23(4), pp.349-372

https://www.cite.soton.ac.uk/iliadconfprogramme/

http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/higher-education-2024-glimpsing-future

Starting Networked Scholarship MOOC #scholar14

I am feeling slightly nervous as I write this post. I have a few other introductory posts to MOOCS that I started and didn’t finish but this one WILL be different.
I have enrolled at https://www.canvas.net/courses/networked-scholars , completed my profile, posted my introductory message and had a look at who has joined and why.
It’s my first time using Canvas, and though it has a slightly Blackboard – like feel, I note one feature that is different. The clickable link on a name leads to their profile (not their email as at Blackboard). That prompted me to cut and paste the relevant parts from my intro message into my profile. I hope others complete their profiles, as I suspect they could be visited much more than the introductory thread.
I am going to get really good value out of my intro message by posting it here too:

Retirement from HE (I was a Senior Lecturer at Salford Business School) has given me a refreshingly different perspective on networked scholarship and informal learning with technology.

Losing access to digital libraries, my Google Scholar page not appearing in search, loss of Web presence via institutional page have all made me think about what it means to be a scholar without affiliation. I am learning more about informal learning and networking independent of work – associated events. I know I will learn from you all.
Oh, and by the way, I love textile crafts and gardening.

I have been thinking about my goals for this MOOC and I hope to share them soon but, more importantly, to see the goals of others to work out how we can help each other get the most from #scholar14.
For week 1 of this course, my participation is enabled/limited by being on a road trip in our motor home with only my phone and limited wifi. I am sure that I can still connect to other participants.

Continue reading

Homophily, Intersectionality and Institutional Cultures as played out on Social Media

This has been a bad week for trust and humanity on the Interwebz. First Kathy Sierra left Twitter for reasons she gives in this article (having already been driven off social media and public engagements in 2007), then Julie Pagano who describes how she became a tech feminist killjoy from working in the tech industry.

Wikipedia defines a troll as “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a serious and respected organisation that defends the Internet as a platform for free speech. There is a culture, visible but not universal in some gaming communities, technical forums and the tech community in general that is voluble about its defence of Internet free speech, seeing it as under threat from any attempt to curb what many of us might see as pathological behaviours.  In this culture, the word troll is used ambiguously, suggesting playfulness and defending anything that is done to combat those who are seen to challenge free speech.  This article, from its own particular slant , suggests a political link to free speech “To conservatives and right-leaning libertarians, it’s a welcome pushback against left-wing cultural diktat, particularly in the area of gender politics.”

EFF’s defence of anonymity is admirable when considered as a means of enabling whistle-blowers, say, but anonymity is experienced differently when short-lived anonymous Twitter accounts post obscene images and threats to their chosen targets.  Internet culture can be a culture of truth/ lies, right/wrong – no shades within the discourse, and some see trolling as a necessary part of free speech online.

“The trolls are the immune system of the internet, and if you have the immune system ganging up on you, then you need to fight back or give up, according to whether they are right or you are right.” Commenter on Kathy Sierra’s article in Wired

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence of women being abused online but social media may be exposing an existing epidemic rather than causing that abuse.  It’s tempting to see a gender split between male trolls and women victims but it’s much more complicated than that. There are trolls and victims of all genders and races, and ‘trolling’ is subjective – the same post being perceived very differently by different people.

For me, the death threats and intimidation that Kathy Sierra experienced were criminal harassment and such harassment should be pursued vigorously under the laws of the country in which it happened. But this extreme behaviour exists in the context of online networks where apparently rational people can disbelieve the existence of threats, or even condone them as being justifiable when the recipient is seen as challenging Internet free speech/ in favour of censorship (even when they haven’t ).

cathysierra When I searched for posts aimed at Kathy Sierra’s Twitter account, I came across these amongst the last sent to her stream.

 

I was struck by two aspects: first the characterisation of Kathy Sierra as a passive-aggressive troll; and secondly, the patronising way in which she was advised how to behave online.  The author of those tweets expressed himself in a rational manner, not appearing to be the sort of person who would harass anyone online.  But it seems to me that in the circles around the extreme harassers are rational people with strong views on freedom who lend support to the less rational who carry out the vile harassment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What stories like Julie Pagano’s tell us is that this is a reflection of tech work culture played out in offices and online. Around this tech culture is yet another circle of ‘male allies’ whose existence I became aware of through #gchmanwatch, where a panel of ‘male allies’ lectured women on how to solve gender problems in the workplace – with no opportunity for questions.  I can recommend the viewing the storify for a rich view of what went on.

allybingo

The silenced audience amused themselves by completing a bingo card with phrases the male allies used in their speeches.

The thing that it is supposed to come with freedom, responsibility, may help shed some light on what is going here. If the culture in which you live your life online tells you that it’s OK if harassment is collateral damage in the cause of freedom of speech on the Internet, then you are wanting that freedom without responsibility.  You may claim that you are not directly responsible. If you are a leader in technology who tells yourself that you are helping to solve gender discrimination in the workplace by telling women how to behave differently, then you are ducking your responsibility.

Homophily is the principle that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people. On the Internet, (Alstyne & Brynjolfsson, 2004) characterised this as voluntary balkanisation with a loss of shared experiences that was damaging to the development of both democratic societies and de-centralised organisations.

So the same Internet that promised freedom and a Global Village is the one where we allow ourselves to reinforce our views by hanging around with people who think like us, and over time we lose trust in people who might think slightly differently. Surely we can do better than this?

I have been thinking recently about the (lack of )diversity in my own Twitter network, and I captured some of the ideas sparked by others in a storify that I concluded with

“But it is a good question – when we network across multiple channels how can we maintain the tension between diversity and drowning? If we pick “really great people” to connect to we are subject to their (lack of) diversity and to the Spiral of Silence.”

Maybe we can employ intersectionality that Wikipedia defines as “the study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.”  So when we think about tech culture, we don’t just think about in terms of gender but also class, race and other categories. I am a practical person, and I am trying to extend my Twitter network to include people whose struggles I understand less well.

My last example is of institutional appropriation of social media and the ethics of anonymous monitoring. Sara Ryan blogged the experiences of her 18 year old son, who had learning disabilities, and was admitted to an Assessment Centre, where he later died, having had an epileptic seizure when unattended in the bath (fuller account here). An independent report found his death to have been preventable and Sara has been using social media to campaign for #justiceforLB.

Last week, Sara discovered that, despite assurances to the contrary from the Chair of the Health Board, her blog had been monitored and a briefing issued that seemed to be aimed at damage limitation and media management. Two worrying issues emerge from the briefing: first that monitoring of the blog revealed Sara’s concerns about the dangers of her son fitting unattended but were ignored; and secondly that the Trust saw itself as the victim of ‘trolling’ on Twitter.

I think that all of these examples show the balkanisation of social, organisational and extra-organisational cultures mediated through face to face and Internet communication.  The question is – what can we do about it?

  • We can look at how we can understand and appreciate the experiences of others by really listening
  • We can take a break like Kathy Sierra and Julie Pagano have done
  • We can challenge hostile and malignant cultures by mocking them like #ghcmanwatch did or when a grave injustice has occurred by campaigns like #justiceforLB

Note: These are complex ideas and this post is my first attempt to work through them. I welcome factual corrections/ constructive criticism

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:

Richard Hall for reminding me of the importance of love and the importance of producing our world collectively – you can watch/listen to his professorial inaugural at http://www.richard-hall.org/2014/10/09/on-my-inaugural/

My dear friends Jenny Mackness and Mariana Funes who have helped me think about the ethics of online learning and being and how things might be different

http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/trust-and-security-in-open-networks/

http://marianafun.es/ct101/2014/10/07/reflection-3-your-stalker-my-friend/

Victoria (best wishes with that PhD) who wrote a great post about trolling

http://digitalmentalhealth.co.uk/wp/when-is-a-troll-not-a-troll-and-who-decides-2/

My great Twitter network who help me reflect, look near and far, and cheer me up when I get grumpy

Alstyne, M. Van, & Brynjolfsson, E. (2004). Global Village or Cyber-Balkans ? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities. Management Science, 1–37.

Bobbing along – water as a medium of participation in learning

I spent yesterday finding and reading papers about community learning and MOOCs, and working on our lovely data from #rhizo14.  Eventually, I felt that I was going around in circles and decided to search for images to help me make some sense of what I was reading and thinking. I found lots of great ‘water’ images ( my Twitter network helped me to track down the wonderful resources and remind me that I had some images of my own that I could use).

I thought – what about thinking of water as a metaphor for participation in an online learning experience/ MOOC?  I didn’t come to any ground-breaking conclusions but it did open up my thinking.

People can have a lot of fun in water. They can splash around with friends, make a lot of noise, letting off steam.  Some people might sit at the side, or dip their toes in the water.  Someone might have a pool party and invite people along to their pool.

Sometimes if everyone was splashing around and disturbing the water we could see the big and bright things but be unable to see much detail of what is going on under the surface.

Or the sun may be shining so brightly that we see the reflected sky rather than the water itself.

Bobbing image 3

by Mark Power used with permission

If the sun was shining very brightly there might be a glare or dazzle that stopped us from seeing below the surface so we mainly see the sun’s glare.

by David Clow CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

by David Clow CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Why might people not get in the water?

It might be beautiful but too cold

by Frances Bell

Jokulsarlon by Frances Bell CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Or too hot

bobbing image 6

by Frances Bell CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Or too toxic

by Frances Bell

by Frances Bell CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

And how would it be if this image captured your learning experience?

bobbing image 8

by Mark Power used with permission

But the weird thing is that different people could simultaneously be experiencing ‘water’ as all of those images at the same time.  A ‘penguin’ learner could happily dive into Jokulsarlon, if only he were in the right hemisphere, whilst other warm-blooded learners shivered at the edge.

So can these images help us understand our experience and that of others as learners?

We are the Jacques Cousteau researchers who need to don their diving and breathing gear to explore under the surface

or have magic powers like this family in Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Anyway just a bit of fun – I realise that there are gaping holes in the metaphor;)

Getting another perspective

This post is a progress report on the research that we (Frances Bell and Jenny Mackness) have been conducting following our participation in the open course Rhizomatic Learning: The community is the curriculum in January 2014.  This research to date has included an online survey, email interviews and a conversation with the convenor of the course Dave Cormier. It has also resulted in a conference presentation (see http://altmoocsig.learningtechnologist.co.uk/category/altmoocsig/

Research approach

If your interest lies solely in the brief report of our conversation with Dave Cormier, go straight to the summary report below.

Jenny and Frances met through the first Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) CCK08, run by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2008. In contrast with the huge MOOCs that followed it, CCK08 has been characterised as a connectivist MOOC or cMOOC.  Separately, we undertook research from that MOOC , and though we have come across each other from time to time, we did not work together until January 2014 when we met on a MOOC convened by Dave Cormier, Rhizomatic Learning – The community is the curriculum, now commonly called #rhizo14.

Rhizo14 was a diverse and busy MOOC: light on readings and loosely structured around weekly ‘provocative’ questions posed by Dave.  Interaction between participants was lively, spread across a variety of platforms and spaces: the P2PU space, Dave’s and participants’ blogs, #rhizo14 Twitter hashtag, a G+ community, a very active Facebook group and of course the less visible but equally valuable backchannels.  There was evidence of joy, creativity and a few clashes of expectations where participants seemed to expect different things from #rhizo14 and were sometimes disappointed by the actions and behaviours of other participants. That is a scant description of what happened.

We were struck by the contrasts between #rhizo14 and other cMOOCS: there were plenty of learning moments but we also experienced and observed some rather painful interactions. Our curiosity was piqued: we wanted to know what was going on beneath the surface and how a range of participants were experiencing #rhizo14.  This seemed significant, given that MOOCs are an opportunity for learning for people who may not otherwise have access to formal education. This inspired us to undertake some research, starting by recording our participant observations, saving links to significant interactions, and then planning how to get participant views first hand.

Given that our research was, to some extent, precipitated by concerns, we were both conscious of the dangers of finding what we were looking for in our research, as outlined by Stephen Downes in his presentation on MOOC Research.  It seems to be a good thing to strive for objectivity, whilst acknowledging that it is an unachievable goal. In outsider research where the researchers see themselves as outside the researched situation, objectivity is a key element of the traditional science-based approach normally adopted.  However, the emphasis on the rigour of the research method can compromise the relevance of the research.  We were engaged in insider research, we became participant observers in #rhizo14.  We could acknowledge the danger of reduced objectivity (whilst taking measures to counteract it) but we could also benefit from the subjectivity of researchers and other participants who shared their views with us. Subjectivity can bring a significant contribution to research in complex situations involving people and their relations with material things and each other.

Our first steps were to declare that we were conducting research, and to engage with other participants (via a Google doc) on what would be ethical ways of using data in our research.  Having consulted and planned our data collection, we shared this as widely as possible in all the spaces in which rhizo14 was evident http://francesbell.wordpress.com/research/rhizo14-research/

Our research process developed organically – the current (but probably not final) representation of this is shown in the following diagram.

Research processv2

Organic Research Process

 

As well as being mindful of and explicit about our roles as researchers, we are very conscious of the partial nature of the data we have collected and are trying to analyse.  The distributed nature of the spaces, the mix of public / private, and the number of survey respondents (47) combine to remind us that we must be missing some important perspectives. What does encourage us is that despite this partial view, our decision to allow for confidential and electively anonymous responses to our surveys, has enabled a light to be cast on what people are thnking, and not saying in public and semi-public forums.. We will make a contribution to the hidden MOOC experience.

Having conducted our survey and email interviews,and recorded our observations, we were conscious that we were missing another important perspective, that of Dave Cormier the course convenor. We approached him to engage in a conversation, rather than an interview, loosely based on the issues  and ambiguities that had emerged to date in our research.  Whilst Dave’s natural inclination was towards openness, he graciously conceded the benefits of having a private conversation where we could discuss issues freely.  The outcome was that although we recorded the Skype conversation between Dave and Frances, we agreed that the recording would be shared between Dave, Frances and Jenny, to be used confidentially for research purposes.  Although this blog post is written by Frances and Jenny, it has been agreed by Dave prior to publication.

Summary of conversation

We started by establishing the privacy/ confidentiality arrangements for our conversation and how we would publish it on blogs. We explored the actual ethics of research as compared with formal ethical approval. It is interesting that some of the most interesting parts of the conversation don’t make their way into the following summary. In a way, this vindicates its private nature. The following summary is not in strict chronological order as the conversation took itsown course, returning to topics at different times.

Community – concepts and issues

Dave explained that his conceptions of community owed more to Nancy White than to Etienne Wenger’s Community of Practice. He feels that being able to participate in a community of knowing is the goal of the learning process, and for him community is people caring about each other.

Dave discussed his experiences in EdTechTalk community , that he started in 2005 with Jeff Lebow and the benefits of being part of EdTechTalk. Dave highlighted the impact involvement in EdTechTalk had made on his work at UPEI.

We discussed that while both teachers and learners may form community, teachers may particularly value parallel community experiences to those they are facilitating with their students.

Sustainability

Sustainability of communities and MOOCS proved to be an interesting topic. We discussed examples of more or less sustainable examples of each.

Compatibility of community with rhizomatic thinking

This was an interesting topic.  There seems to be inevitable tension between the two concepts, and we discussed the advantages and disadvantages that can emerge from this tension. Community is the curriculum is a concept that Dave explored in the lead up to his 2008 article. Dave has found the rhizome useful in the cause of getting rid of the ‘content’ in education as he sees that as in opposition to how people, doctors for example, really learn their practice.

De-centring the Leader

Several times we returned to the issue of the centring or otherwise of Dave’s role in the course. We explored the benefits that his leadership brought and also some of the problems in which it played a part. Is it possible to achieve benefits such as seen in EdTechTalks without a leader? We also discussed the effectiveness of some of the tactics that communities employ to take the focus away from a leader’s decisions and actions, including community guidelines, FAQs, distributed moderation.  This was a rich discussion drawing on real incidents from rhizo14, and made more possible in the context of a private conversation.

Inevitably, we ran out of time to discuss everything on our agenda.  It was a challenging, rich and warm discussion that will inform Jenny and Frances’ research and Dave’s planning for rhizo15.

Ice Bucket Challenge – the woolly liberal version

I suppose it’s almost inevitable that once you comment on people doing the Ice Bucket Challenge, you have raised your head above the parapet and should expect to catch a bullet.  In my case it was my dear sister-in-law Moira Richardson, a recent entrant to Facebook, who challenged me. Although I am rather too old and overweight for the wet t-shirt competition, I thought that I should stand up to the plate, and try to make the best of it in my best woolly liberal manner.

First question – to which charity should I donate?  I figured that the ALS Association in USA and the Motor Neurone Disease Association. in the UK had probably done very well from it already. I wondered about Macmillan but, alerted by my son Dan Bell, I noticed the paid ad at the top of the Google Search. I wondered how much they paid for that ad. So I decided to donate to a good cause dear to the hearts of friends Toni and Si Blower who lost their precious firstborn son within days of his birth.

Next question was the thorny issue of wasting water on this #firstworld tomfoolery.  I decided to stand in a tray and try to recycle the water.  The video will reveal my success? in this aim.

Finally whom should I challenge?  I have a lifelong horror of chain letters (and now emails).  The emotional blackmail makes my toes curl so this is my challenge:

To anyone in my network and circle of friends, I challenge you to choose to

  • Do your own version of the challenge and donate to the charity of your choice
  • Don’t do the challenge and donate to the charity of your choice
  • Ignore the tomfoolery

Whichever you choose is just fine with me.

I had some concerns about the exploitation around this initiative – teach your two year old to swear on video as she drenches herself, endless media feeding frenzy on the topic, competitive social media strategies by charities.  But…. If it means that we are stirred into some sort of action and give more money to charity than we have done otherwise , it’s not all bad. So do think about donating this good cause or any other.

P.S. I forgot to say that if nothing else, it’s a great opportunity to see me make a fool of myself.