1 Tinkering Toward Utopia
The success of Foursquare is let the costumer participate in the data commutation, meanwhile this kind of motivational data structure could destroy the data neutrality? In the first 3 years Foursquare was collected data like survey, then they dig the data and shift into tendentiousness. Was that reversal the purpose?
Geraci described that DIY city was a totally bottom up organization. All those community are from bottom. It that the reason those kind of form would not lasting long? Like people swipe from one social network to another, from yep to Foursquare. What if all those app share data and customer, will this help?
2 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism
Beside mobile app and sensors devices, what else could we engage or participate the digital urbanism?
Since ancient Greek they used coins in pot to vote and participated politics engagements. In digital urbanism, individuals could more easily participate politics and voting, could that lead to a populism? And how to prevent public data engagement will not be manipulate?
The idiot of could means that public could been collected and contributed to the data network without noticing, so that data collected will be authentic and neutrality. When a person who is aware of his data and information will be collected, he/she might not be act normal. So we need the sample to be “idiot”? After several decades when people used to be a data collector, will this problem be vanished ?