i'd really forgotten about that fourth step... frequent summaries. you're right, it was incredibly valuable. not only did it clarify the story as it was developing, it provided focus in pushing on. and well, nurturing is always good. it energizes those in the hunt and encourages new people to join in.

great analysis, cho. and thanks for the reminders.

by kiw on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 09:21:41 PM EST

it's quite an excellent review, glad kiw brought up the nurturing aspect in addition to the regular summary.  

keeping the attention focussed by us ADD'ers is important!

by luaptifer on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 10:40:05 PM EST

Obviously -- I think the "us" in the enterprise is central to everything we do at ePluribus Media.  (Thanking you again for the BRILLIANT logo, kiw!!)

But Luaptifer, I was really struck by your comment on Kos about the scientific method.

Duh, "could have had a V-8" moment here.  Of course, especially with the theory, test it out, verify, recast the theory iterative cycle.

Thanks for that reminder!

by Cho on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 10:58:33 PM EST

What you described is the essence of good research and great writing.  By consolidating all the accumulated evidence as you go, the larger picture emerges and you are able to assimilate the many pieces into a coherent whole.  It also trains the mind to think in a more efficient and logical fashion.
 I also agree that the feedback mechanism to the contributors is critical.  We are all Pavlov's dogs and respond to positive & negative reinforcement in predictable ways.  One positive feedback insures my repeated contributions, even in the absence of continued reinforcements.  And one negative one (punishment)can send me running for cover. People crave predictablity.  It is the repeated negative consequences for positive behaviors that sends people into learned helplessness and depression. Katrina's victims are at great risk for this.  Many did what they were told and got punished by circumstances and human incompetance.

by DEFuning on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 11:05:27 PM EST

I think it's the summarizing that moves things forward ... and the lack of it is right now creating some of the current backlog problem with the stories we've been trying to turn out from the research site.

When the diaries started going with Gannon (and by the way, there were TWO a DAY), I realized one of the important things was to follow the outline you have above BUT repeat and refine it twice a day. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

New question each time, or different angle of question, or deeper looking into question by posing subsidiary questions.

I think it's good to be reminded that if we want to get some big-time stories churned out by epluribus now, we don't HAVE to wait until we have all the answers. In fact, it's more fun, more energizing and more effecient to think in terms of journalistic series (the Gannon diaries were simply a series on speed).

What that means for us now, with all the research we have, is that we don't wait until we have all the answers. We write one small short piece that notes an oddity and then we pose a question. Then we come back a couple of days later with more info, summarize again, refine the posed question, and move forward.

I think we're stuck because we're thinking in terms of "All the President's Men," the book, when what we should be looking at as a model in the Watergate story are the original stories (I think there were 62), that basically followed your model (and went off on interesting tangents as well, with subsidiary questions).

Until we get that process down, I think we're going to continue to feel kind of sunk under all the weight of the accumulated research we've done in so many areas.

So it's a great reminder, Cho, of what works. Thanks for posting this.

by SusanG on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 11:17:14 PM EST