One indicator of civic (and political) crisis beyond a U.S. context is post-election violence. It can be the result of many factors, including the expression of long-simmering tension between rival factions, anger over lack of economic opportunity, or a breakdown in trust between political or ethnic groups, especially if there are allegations of vote-rigging.

The 2007 post-election violence in Kenya is one example of this. After Mwai Kibaki declared victory, opposition leader Raila Odinga and his supporters rejected his declaration, alleging it was the result of rampant vote rigging. Violence erupted which resulted in over 1,200 deaths and 600,000 displaced persons. While a power sharing agreement eventually resolved the political dispute, serious questions remain for the country about how to heal the civic crisis. Much of the violence targeted ethnic groups. Kibaki is a member of the Kikuyu people and Odinga is a member of the Luo, and there were instances of members of each group attacking the other.

IRIN states that media was used to spread violence: “Inflammatory statements and songs broadcast on vernacular radio stations and at party rallies, text messages, emails, posters and leaflets have all contributed to post-electoral violence in Kenya, according to analysts.” Neelam Verjee states that mobile phones and SMS messages “were used to start rumors, instill fear, and mobilize perpetrators to violence.”

In the wake of this post-election violence several funders and NGOs have been working to build systems that could counteract these messages in the future. Sisi ni Amani-Kenya (“We are Peace Kenya” in Kiswahili) “uses mobile technology as a tool for civic education, civic engagement, and dialogue to help Kenyans realize their common needs irrespective of political divides.  We provide a neutral source of credible information and peace promotion. Rumors, misinformation, and confusion are key contributors to violence: getting people actionable information at the right time is crucial, and SNA-K’s use of SMS enables immediate, trusted and effective communication.”

Another example of using technology for civic renewal is Uchaguzi, a multi-organizational effort based on the Ushahidi crowdmapping platform to increase transparency and the flow of reliable information to respond quickly to problems. The Knight Foundation considered it a success when used during the 2010 referendum.

But how are these efforts contributing to civic renewal? Just as Johan Galtung differentiates between positive peace (the absence of structural violence, or the presence of social justice) and negative peace (the absence of personal violence) in “Violence, Peace and Peace Research” (1969), perhaps we should think in terms of positive and negative civic renewal. Negative civic renewal might therefore be defined the absence of civic decline. It would mean at least maintaining the status quo so that things don’t get worse. Positive civic renewal would be the active creation of new strong and weak social ties across rival groups resulting in an increase in trust. Thus when Sisi ni Amani attempts to counteract a call to violence over SMS, they are engaging in negative civic renewal. But when they work with community peace activists to help them spread their message across rival groups they are engaging in positive civic renewal. Both forms of renewal might reduce violence, but the long-term solution would seem to depend on positive civic renewal. Uchaguzi seems more oriented toward managing mistrust and making sure that problems are reported and rapidly addressed. Thus it may be primarily focused on negative civic renewal.

Ultimately, efforts like Sisi ni Amani and Uchaguzi that use media and technology to counteract messages promoting violence and increase the flow of reliable information are indeed examples of civic renewal in one form or another. By preventing critical breakdowns in tolerance and trust, Kenyans may be able to engage in what I am calling positive civic renewal, which is very similar to Robert Putnam’s description of rebuilding social capital. This entails re-establishing “social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.”

At 3:50 I briskly walked through central square to a small cafe tucked away on a side street.

There were 5 of gathered around a low-set coffee-table: two consultants, two MIT Course 6 Juniors, and a Northeastern CS sophomore on Co-Op. One of the consultants was female, the rest of us male. All were ‘white’.

Our conversation quickly delved into deep territory. We talked about motivations, happiness, and dreams. I won’t go too detailed here: although we were strangers, we quickly became comfortable and I don’t think it would be fair to the experience to divulge much. I will say this: I had a chai latte.

Although lengthy, the 2 hours seemed to pass quickly.

On the three questions I asked earlier:

• No one was lame
• Consultants are very busy, but they were able to make it, which is reassuring!
• Tech Early Adopters — This is definitely a factor. Everyone there was pretty technical

We talked about the kind of people who would come to this — I’ll admit, I did mention Putnam — and the general consensus was that we weren’t too diverse. However, there was excitement in learning from other groups. We were all pretty young, but there was excitement to be able to connect with an older generation as well. I mentioned to my mother that I was going to this, and she remarked that she would like to go on one — so perhaps this will be marketable to a general audience moreso (I know, I know, we aren’t supposed to say, “my mom could do it,” as a tech gender-norm patriarchy enforcing phrase, but I really did talk to my mom and that is what she said).

I’m not quite sure if I would go again soon — it seems like it is too small at the moment; I would quickly exhaust the set of hosts, however it is certainly an experience I’d recommend you try. If something like this really catches on with a more diverse audience, I think it would be a great avenue for bridging social activity. After all, who doesn’t like getting tea?

In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam identifies a collapse in American community as a major civic crisis. The essence of this crisis is that Americans no longer engage with one another through activities (such as bowling groups — hence the title), which has diminished the country’s social capital, or value in its social network. In order to rejuvenate America, people must engage in activities which increase Bridging, or connections between differing types of people. Putnam argues largely that this type of activity increases trust and decreases inequality which keep the nation strong.

Something is brewing that could fix all that. Tea With Strangers (http://www.teawithstrangers.com/) is an initiative in its nascency which connects local strangers over tea. The description from the main page reads:

You look at sites like Humans of New York or Upworthy and think they’re super cheesy but you like/comment/share ’em anyway. Then you wonder where the hell these people are in the real world. Your social scene is awesome but it’s starting to feel stale. You’ve tried 3 different Meetup groups before you gave up and resorted to hoping for meaningful encounters at local bars. You can’t remember the last time you had a ‘no strings attached’ conversation. You regularly find yourself wanting to get to know the people around you — your friends, strangers, the barista, your waiter, the dude wearing the funky socks or the girl with the bright yellow pants. Whoever.

The nice thing about Tea With Strangers is that it’s self selective. Lames don’t show up because two hours is a pretty serious commitment for a group of people you don’t know. You’re probably curious about what the conversation is like, what other crazies would show up to sit with a group of strangers. You’re not sure what to expect, but you have a hunch it’ll probably be good. And you have stories to share yourself.

And yes, it’s tempting to just opt for Netflix, do nothing, or just hang with your typical crowd. It’s easier. You know what to expect. And you don’t have to think much. But tea time is kinda like going to the gym. It’s good for ya, you know you’ll be glad you went, and you’re a better person for it. You might go regularly and end up with a six pack, or it might just be a one time thang and you pat yourself on the back for it. Except at tea time, you’re working out your empathy/listening/acceptance/compassion muscles. Still trying to figure out what the analogous six pack is here. But we all want one.

It’s fairly obvious that this is an opportunity for building bridges, but it’s non obvious that it will work as expected, or if it will have a large impact. There are some simple issues with it up front:

• ‘Lames’: These are the people you *won’t* meet here. But will it be an echo chamber? How many people are truly ‘Lames’? Do they need to be bridged to? How can they engage
• Time: 2 hours is a lot of time to ask. I’m able to take it because I am taking a class which expects 12 hours a week, leaving me time to explore and investigate new sources. Perhaps for those less well to do, or busier, this commitment is too grand which cuts them out.
• Tech Circle-Jerk Early Adopters: Like any new technical project, the early adopters are in tech. Will I meet people outside this bubble? (A cursory check on my Facebook page shows that all my friends who like the page are in tech).

In order to evaluate how effective this is, I signed up to go to a meeting on Sunday. I’m posting this now to share my preconceptions, before I experience the reality.

Armed with a slight sense of adventure, and perhaps a notepad and camera, tomorrow I will disembark on a journey.

How many people will be there?

Who will I talk to?

What will I learn?

What kind of tea will I get?

 

Stay tuned for part 2.

Far from an uncontested term, the potential definitions for citizen journalism span a number of gamuts. There is the affiliative range, along which examples of journalism range from the independent citizen to one publishing in partnership on a conventional news organization’s platform with their editorial review. There is also the range of professionalism, where an individual could have no experience presenting news to an audience (e.g. the bystanders who filmed the Charlie Hebdo attacks posting their videos to social media) or a professional journalist acting independently of any news organization.

There are many examples along these axes that are fairly defensible. An individual with some small amount of experience authoring and presenting information for public consumption posting on an open news platform falls well within most definitions of citizen journalism. Toward the edges however, we find cases that are more difficult to defend. Can a professional journalist ever be called a citizen journalist or do their background and professional affiliation exclude them from this label.

Another axis along which the definition gets fuzzy is the specific definition of journalism itself. How formal does the presentation of information need to be before one can call it journalism? Is posting a video with little or no accompanying text anything more than a share? At what point does it become journalism? Does intent matter? Is it simply news if the publisher specifies it as such?

Conflict Kitchen (http://conflictkitchen.org) lies on the edges of these axes. While the main identity of CK is a restaurant, without a doubt they publish current information (in the form of “disposable” paper wrappers for much of their food; far from an exalted format) researched, composed, and designed by the owners, addressing current events relevant to their patrons. (Format is of course another property of publication that may or may not fall within some definitions of journalism.) While some may argue that CK is an art project or simply an event, I would argue that it is very much a form, albeit a rare one, of citizen journalism. It is, in fact, a very rich form of journalism. Not only do the iterations of CK include textual reporting, included are interviews, visual designs inspired by the country of focus, and a number of viewpoints that are designed to promote debate and discussion.

One of the reasons I find CK so compelling as a citizen journalism effort is their ability to play with these very formats. Because they are not relegated to the stale forms typically reserved for conventional journalism, they are able to have much more impact. They can craft their media in such a way that it engages readers, contextualizing it with food, visual design, and even performance so that consumers are immersed in the issues being presented. In a way, they make the cultures they are reporting on undeniable. One must confront them as a people with history, politics, and art. A typical journalistic outlet may treat populations simply as a a collection of assumptions or as a weak representation of an otherwise rich and complex entity.

Along the spectrum of effort, Conflict Kitchen is quite far in the direction of heavily prepared (a far cry from a simple blog post or video share) and the definition is stretched by the fact that they operate with funding from supporters and post job opportunities. That said, they operate well outside of the traditional journalism industry, and provide alternative viewpoints not seen elsewhere. Their final product may be a beautiful, polished, nuanced presentation, but certainly we should not exclude projects from the citizen journalism space because they succeed at it.

On March 3 1991, a manager at a plumbing and rooting company by the name of George Holliday awoke to sirens outside of his Los Angeles apartment. With the help of a Sony Handycam, Holliday began filming what would soon become fodder for national protests, riots and debates – the beating of Rodney King by multiple officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. After receiving unsatisfactory information from the police about why the star of his video was brutally assaulted, Holliday decided to bring the video to a local news station, KTLA-TV. The result of this decision, made by a manager at a small plumbing company who happened to be in the right place at the right time, have become embedded within history textbooks and racial debates ever since.

With the act of placing the Rodney King footage in the public sphere, George Holliday arguably became the first widely influential citizen journalist. By citizen journalist, I mean an average citizen, unaffiliated in any way with the formal institutions of journalism, who saw something of journalistic importance and took it into his own hands to distribute unbiased and reliable information on the matter.

What is critically important in the Holliday situation is the medium through which he reported the incident: live video of the incident itself. The old adage ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ holds a lot of weight. People tend to believe and deeply internalize something which they can see with their own eyes. By engaging the human vision apparatus, video footage of humans activates empathic responses within other humans. There is evidence to suggest that this is the result of the way we internally process vision. Psychological research points us towards the idea that we actually simulate what we are seeing within our mind as a core part of seeing – and if we are seeing a person we also tend to simulate what it would be like to be a person in their situation (i.e. empathy) [1]. This tie to emotion in conjunction with the fact that video is difficult to doctor believably, means that video can also be held to a higher standard of intrinsic truth than a traditional eyewitness report and therefore carries much higher amounts of persuasive information.

With 8 minutes of video at 30 frames per second, George Holliday was able to capture 14,400 images (or, if we accept the ‘image is worth 1000 words’ adage, the equivalent of 14,400,000 words or 163 copies of Plato’s Republic) about police brutality and racial injustice in America. 14,400 images which, in the absence of formal reporting, were previously available only to those living within the communities where such injustices were readily present.

George Holliday’s case represents the beginning of a fundamental shift in humanity’s storytelling capabilities. The importance of this shift cannot be understated enough. It is so important because such a shift changes who is able to tell credible stories. It separates reputation and public perception of a storyteller from the content of the story they are telling. For most of human history, one had to depend on the reputation of the author of a story to make a judgment about the credibility of the story they were telling. The journalism industry was built out of this need for reputation-based credibility. Such a dynamic also meant that unless one was in a position within society where attaining a position of credibility was possible, one’s voice could easily be muted by those who were already in such societal positions.

We now live in an age where this is no longer the case. According to a 2013 report on the mobile phone industry there are approximately 4.4 billion mobile phones equipped with cameras in the world [2]. Almost two thirds of the world now has the ability to create and disseminate reliable information in their pocket at all times. In this new age, one can have credibility without the need for reputation. Such a democratization of credibility will have profound impacts on how democracies operate and the power balances within those democracies by changing whose voice is perceived as credible.

In 2014, Eric Garner was filmed being choked to death by a police officer, sparking national outrage. The man filming the incident was Ramsey Orta – a man who would later face criminal charges for an incident of weapons possession unrelated to the Garner case. Yet, because the controversy around Eric Garner was based on video, Orta’s personal reputation is irrelevant to the story and Garner’s case remains one of the most irrefutable examples of American police brutality in recent memory. Contrast this with the Michael Brown case which occurred around the same time but had an eyewitness testimony that was quickly discredited by the reputation (and by extension credibility) imbalance of the witnesses arguing for and against the officer who shot Brown.

From Rodney King to Eric Garner, injustices are being exposed and brought to the public light by those who previously were not considered reputable enough for their testimonies to be considered credible. Citizen journalists now have the tools to irrefutably report on the world around them, regardless of their background or position in society. What this means for democracy is yet to be determined, but it is hard to believe that it won’t fundamentally shift the balance of power in democracies across the globe.

References:
[1] See simulation theory within the psychology literature
[2] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/03/the-annual-mobile-industry-numbers-and-stats-blog-yep-this-year-we-will-hit-the-mobile-moment.html

[Disclaimer: Global Voices intrigued me before I realized Ethan Zuckerman was a co-founder. I tried very hard to find another example to explain my definition of citizen journalism but I wasn’t able to].

Citizen journalism is a form of journalism where the public is the reporter, editor, publisher, and reader that has the intention of being a public good. To quote Robert Putnam, “frequent interaction among a diverse set of people tends to produce a norm of generalized reciprocity. Civic engagement and social capital entail mutual obligation and responsibility for action.” Citizen journalism, when done right, should evoke action.

Global Voices is one such example of citizen journalism. They describe themselves as “a borderless, largely volunteer community of more than 1200 writers, analysts, online media experts and translators. Global Voices has been leading the conversation on citizen media reporting since 2005. We curate, verify and translate trending news and stories you might be missing on the Internet, from blogs, independent press and social media in 167 countries. Many of the world’s most interesting and important stories aren’t in just one place. Sometimes they’re scattered in bits and pieces across the Internet, in blog posts and tweets, and in multiple languages. These are the stories we accurately report on Global Voices—and translate into up to 30 languages, including Malagasy, Bangla and Aymara.”

Appropriately named, Global Voices is a collection of voices from citizens all over the world, including citizens from marginalized and misrepresented communities. By translating articles in over thirty languages, more readers can be contributors and more contributors can be readers; strengthening the community.

Curation is at the heart of successful citizen journalism because it separates citizen journalism from simply an aggregation of large amounts of unfiltered content. Emily Bell writes about the consequence of bad journalism, “the problems the press creates when it works badly, errors of fact and interpretation, opacity, carelessness- are amplified by new technology and new capabilities.” As new technologies like smart phones allow people to take photos, capture video, record audio, and instantly share content to their friends, family, and to the greater public, there is room for both beneficial and harmful effects. At Global Voices, the curation process requires the collaboration of leaders, advisors, contributors, and volunteers to make sure the stories are poignant and worthwhile.

I believe that in the future, there will be no separation between journalism and citizen journalism. All jouralism will be citizen journalism. Journalism will look more like Global Voices than the New York Times. Martin Shubik, a professor of Yale asked in the 1960’s: “How much time can the man on the street devote to politics? As population grows and the world becomes more complex, how can society keep the individual supplied with the right information for making political decisions and preserving his dream? The problem is not the speed of generation of transmutations of bits of raw data per second. It lies at the far more fundamental level of interpretation and understanding.” In order to get to the level of intepretation and understanding needed to inform citizens, citizen journalism will require collaboration, connection and participation from all sectors of society.

Sonya

An important result of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in France was a major debate about liberty of expression that took place in the aftermath of the shootings. Altogether, French united in defense of the cherished value of freedom of expression. Even those who disagreed with the provocative stance of Charlie Hebdo “were Charlie”. In many place could you read the following quote, mistakenly attributed to Voltaire but which gets the point across quite neatly: „I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it »

If the spirit of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment makes every French(wo)man enormously proud, there has however been a discordant note in these debates. Discussing what journalists can and should say necessarily derived into the debate about what they actually do say. The more disturbing question was: „Is what they say true?”

Through the great narrative of France’s defense of liberty runs a disturbing fault line. The French media landscape is mined by scandals. A few years ago, „Les Nouveaux de chiens de Garde“ , a film both terribly threatening and masterly researched disclosed the intervowenness of the media with big business magnates and high-ranking politicians.

The film depicted a power network that consistently works against bringing undesirable truths to light. To name but one example: in 2012 radioactive substances leaked from a nuclear power plant in Western France. The problem was quickly resolved. Expertise showed that the cement used fort he construction and supplied by a certain company called Bouygues was at the origin of the issue… This very company happens to own the biggest new channel in the country, TF1. And so it happened that the incident never made it to the headlines.

Carte du Parti de la presse et de l’argent in: Les Nouveaux Chiens de Garde.
http://a54.idata.over-blog.com/1/30/37/13/Novembre-2011/Carte-du-Parti-de-la-Presse-et-de-l-Argent.jpg

 

The above-mentioned considerations show why citizens’ journalism is necessary.

Citizens’ journalism is a new kind of journalism that makes inventive use new tools of communication – website, blogs, new social media, forum- by millions of individuals in an interconnected world the means of creation, expression and information. This implies a fundamental change in the way information and perceptions are created and shared. The Citizen, from simple receiver turns into the creator/transmitter for information to a worldwide audience. He himself becomes a media. This evolution has incited grass-root journalism and civic engagement. This is, perhaps, the closest we have ever been to the ideal of democracy and the enlightened citizen, to Aristotle’s definition of citizenship as the participation of every citizen in power to deliberate, to judge and to command.

When asked why people do not read anymore, Zadie Smith answered that the premise of the question was mislead. People read more than ever, they just do not read the same way. We read what comes up on our Facebook newsfeed, on Buzzfeed and on the blogs. This is not a bad development and for me the institutions, such as the European Union, who do not grasp and take advantage of this new form of public discussion are mislead. We stand at the beginning of a new era of information gathering.

 

Of course there is a discrepancy of qualification between a well-trained journalist and a blogger. Is the information found on the Internet as accurate as it is in the newspapers? Can we trust the anonymous blogger? Does he tell the truth?

But do the journalists make a better job at it?

If truths are as plentiful as falsehoods then my feeling is that we should seek the truths that count the most. Accessible, independent and diverse grassroots journalism seems a good start for this.

 

My personal favorite is the French website Mediapart.

Its manifesto of November 2008 begins as follows: « the freedom of the press is not a privilege of the journalists, but a right of the citizens. »

 

In practice, Mediapart is a website with two different sources of contributions: The “Journal”, written by professional journalists, and The Club, enlivened by. Mediapart intertwines articles of the newspapers and the contributions of the readers and the moderation made according to a principle of individual and collective responsibility. The site is therefore bi-cephalous, and this is a warrant for its independence, it is the true newspaper of its readers. It played a key role in uncovering corruption scandals in France. At a time where there were hot debates around the question of an alleged national identity impermeable to North African culture in France, Mediapart took a strong stance for tolerance and equality and refused to debate such a notion.

 

 

People with different backgrounds has talked about citizen journalism. There is a lot of conceptions and practical applications. From reader’s comments in mainstream newspapers to independent blogs have claimed to themselves the umbrella of citizen journalism. However, what is the fundamental element in this concept? The most common and simpler answer is: “citizen journalism is the journalism made by the citizens”. This is true, but is this a satisfactory answer?

Citizen journalism is not only about procedure – who write the news, but also about the values that guide the journalistic work. It’s not just the journalism made by citizen, but the journalism guided by citizenship values. In fact, citizen journalism should be oriented to defend the citizenship, without other political or economic commitments. The most important is the freedom to produce news outside the market needs and to cover topics with frames from citizenship view.

I recognize that this is a demanding concept, but this is the only way to valorize the ‘citizen’ element. And, with this differentiation, we can understand and criticize better some initiatives made by citizens but sometimes against citizens’ interest.

Furthermore, citizen journalism is always an activity politically engaged. Each citizen journalism initiative has always a cultural challenge. There is at least two ways trough which this challenge happens. First, the citizen journalism usually needs to build news frames about objects already known. Some topics are always covered with the same frame by the mainstream journalism and citizen journalism has tried to show other perspectives. Second, to produce visibility to issues without public attention. Some topics are never covered by the mainstream journalism, but they are important to citizenship and citizen journalism is trying to draw attention to them.

For example, I can cite the remarkable Brazilian case Voz das Comunidades [Community’s Voice], founded by a teenager called Rene Silva in 2005. This initiative was founded as a print newspaper to talk about community issues from favela Morro do Alemão, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). The printing was done in a photocopy machine and delivered in the streets. Over time, Voz das Comunidades created an account on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, besides a website. At this moment, there are about 175K followers in Twitter, 36K likers in Facebook.

Voz das Comunidades became known in 2010 when police forces raided Morro do Alemão to expel drug dealers who controlled the region. Rene Silva covered all police operations through Twitter. He was the only source inside the community, exception the police that not always inform correctly on their own actions.

Now, about 20 people are engaged in the project and his founder, Rene Silva, is planning expand it to other favelas in Rio de Janeiro and also other cities. He is an ambassador for more positive favela representation and, because of that, he has worked as consulter to TV shows and one telenovela that talk about the way of life of the favelas’ residents. Rene was also one of four Brazilians that carried the Olympic torch in London.

As Rene Silva said to O Globo newspaper, “there was need to a local newspaper, because the people feared the mainstream media, which was only going to favela when happened shootings and deaths. News about us was always about bad things, news about violence. The normal daily routine was ignored”.

In my point-of-view, the cultural challenges of Voz das Comunidades are, at same time, reframe the issue of violence and to show positive aspects from their neighborhood. Urban violence is over covered and, generally, from the police perspective. People that suffer with violence consequences generally doesn’t have opportunity to explain consequences to their life, what they have to do to keep themselves alive, worries, fears. Voz das Comunidades wants to cover this topic from an inside perspective, from who is living this urban tragedy (see example). They also want to show some positive things that are never covered by the mainstream media, especially positive examples that can inspire others (see history about a popular writer and about a quadriplegic painter).

Finally, Voz das Comunidades is about change minds, is about change the public perception about the life inside the favelas. Sometimes this cultural challenge needs add other perspectives about topics over covered, sometimes it needs to publicize the human richness that grow up in this hard context.

I define citizen journalism to be any sort of writing about matters of significance beyond the self performed by individuals not paid for their work. With this definition in mind, I find Quora to be a compelling example of citizen journalism. Quora is a question and answer website that allows users to submit questions of interest and categorize them, request that certain individuals answer specific questions, and, of course, answer questions themselves. This model is not completely novel – it was tried for the first time about a decade ago by Yahoo Answers, but Quora has managed to attain an unprecedented level of quality, presumably by employing more sophisticated spam detection algorithms and by targeting educated social networks.

In my mind, one of the great merits of Quora is that it provides individual narratives about topics that are most often spoken about in generalizations. One of my favorite questions involved the intelligence of former U.S. president George W. Bush. A former White House staffer wrote an answer describing Bush’s careful analysis of a report about the progress made in space exploration during his tenure and his identification of errors made by experts on the topic. Most popular articles about Bush’s supposed stupidity focus on a few public gaffes, such as his mispronunciation of the word “nuclear”; rarely do we hear such intimate personal stories about public figures. A similarly intimate story was written by a man whose business was based in the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He describes the horror of hearing of the deaths of some of his colleagues, trying to account for all of his employees, and talking on the phone to the families of some of the deceased.

Another example of quality content on Quora is that which is targeted to small interest groups. For example, many users of Quora are software engineers. One of the most popular types of specialized content is therefore descriptions of the interview processes at top software companies. Although these descriptions are written by employees and thus likely paint a rosier than deserved picture of the interviews, they often provide important details that help candidates better prepare for them. Writers generally elaborate upon question types, number of interviews, and emphasis on cultural versus technical fit. Their answers provide a personal touch to a process that can otherwise seem impersonal and intimidating.

In sum, Quora connects people with niche knowledge and an interest in sharing it to those who are looking for it. Writers on Quora generally do not have an incentive to start blogs because it is unlikely that those seeking their expertise will be able to locate their blogs from among the millions of others on the Web, even with the help of Google. By keeping content within Quora, authors can rely on Quora’s algorithms for understanding users to connect them with the right audiences. In addition, by submitting questions, users can elicit knowledge from others who did not even realize they had it or did not previously have a conscious interest in sharing it.