[Re-posting this since I lost my posts from my old blog. First time posted two weeks after SIME 09 this fall].
I was following the SIME Stockholm conference remotely through blogs and twitter. I was not at the conference or the workshop. The following is only my opinions based on the knowledge I got from the conference.
SIME (Scandinavian Interactive Media Event) gathers many persons that are into media and the conference is inspirational to many. These visitors then share what they learn through their own networks and knowledge is omnipresent as it should be. This is the reason I was so surprised when I saw this tweet:
RT @dustboy Huh? Transparens? RT @tjompa: Eh, reglerna för workshopen är: inga tweets & inga citat. Strange. #sime09
[Huh? Transparancy? Eh, rules for the workshop are: no tweets & no quotations. Strange.]
There was some discussion around this and since it was one of the first workshops for the SIME 09 conference some thought it might be new policy from the organizers this year but this was quickly denied through a tweet.
RT @simeblog: PLZ RT #SIME09 vill att ni twittrar . Om någon som håller i en Workshop vill annorlunda, så ber vi er att respektera det.
[SIME09 wants you to twitter. If someone organizing a workshop wants something else, we ask you to respect this.]
The workshop that applied the “no tweets and no quotations” policy was titled Changing giants – how traditional companies has transformed to digital. It was moderated by Bob Stumpel (Result) and the two experts present were Dan Ochterlony (Schibsted) and Claudia Gonzalez (UNHCR). The workshop started out with one of them saying: “I will tell you a lot and it is without sugarcoating but please don’t tweet/quote me etc” (quoted by someone that broke the rules). The question is why these persons applied the “no tweets and no quotation rule” and restricted the transparency and flow of knowledge?
A few possible explanations for the limited transparency:
1. They were over-stepping boundaries and talking about knowledge that could hurt the companies they were talking about (or themself if it came out they had revealed those “secrets”).
2. The information during the workshop was nothing new or innovating. It was shallow enough to restrict them using it again in other situations if it was shared.
Other explanations on why people want to limit the transparency at a workshop?
I previously (before I lost my database) got some replies on this post from Mahesh who was working at SIME. He confimed my first guess on why the limitation on transparency was implemented in that workshop. I’ll re-post part of that conversation here.
Hi, thanks for pointing out the whole side of the story. As you mentioned, the moderators and experts in the workshops wanted to give their maximum knowledge and share their learnings and that included some information that is generally not shared. Hence, the no tweet policy during that particular workshop alone. And oh btw, #sime09 was the second most tweeted word during the 2 days in Scandinavia and that I believe could not have happened with a “no tweet” policy
This question about restricting content is very interesting seeing what is happening today. An example of this is Newscorp restricting their transparency by locking away content from google.
Would this way of making a profit be an alternative for SIME in the future? Locking content by applying a no tweet / quotation policy on some workshops / presentations and making people pay in order to take part of the content from those?
Hi, I think the best things in life, especially knowledge should be free online. I think its great you are able to cover the conference without even attending it, and that is the power of spreading knowledge. A pay per view idea might not be all bad considering we have some great speakers, but we should tie it down with more interesting content and discussions to make it more meaningful for a person to engage online as much as he / she does when at the conference. Food for thought for 2010 I am sure