There is, it seems, something of a dichotomy between thought and action when discussing the Free Legal Web; the idea itself is remarkably (even brilliantly) simple, but any possible implementation plan, at first blush, looks to be hopelessly complex. I should quickly add that I am a firm supporter of the idea in principle, and I imagine most of you reading this will be too. So it comes down to how thought will be translated into action. The core issues to be discussed at Barcamp go to the heart of this, and to my mind the most troublesome challenges ahead are:
- Data access issues — What resources are available and what are the barriers to their re-use?
- Editorial/UGC issues — For whom/by whom? Accuracy and authenticity? An “acceptable bargain”?
I am looking forward to seeing how those challenges can be met, and overcome. Oh, and has anyone thought of a name as yet? My unimaginative, tired brain suggested ‘Legalpedia’, but a domain name search reveals the suggestion is not an original one. ‘Lawpus’ (a conflation of ‘Law’ and ‘Corpus’) is available, but it doesn’t quite have the right ring to it…
Complex maybe, but it is doable. Through this blog and the Barcamp we will – in concert – begin to translate thought to action.
I agree – as a certain sports brand is so fond of saying, impossible is nothing.
Obviously, I’m signed up. But I am concerned. The level of free work should not be underestimated, nor should the difficulty of attracting and sustaining that free work. I say this despite, or because of NL’s so far successful – early days – transition to a group blog, which has a high level of freely donated contribution by practising barristers and solicitors. But even from this early point, it is clear that a lot of editorial pre-planning and management work is required to go to a group/sector blog. I’m frankly astonished that I have had so many volunteers, bluntly, it took two years of solo freebie work and sweat to get a specialist audience to the point that others see it as something worth helping to maintain. ‘If you build it, they will come’, perhaps, but the building takes a lot more time and effort than most imagine – in my case, two to three new specialist case comments every week for 18 months.
So, I love the idea of the free legal web, and I think that enquiring mind’s suggestion of an agreed semantic web syntax may well be the way to go to make the most of existing resources, but no-one should expect free large scale contribution to appear out of the ether. Ain’t going to happen.
WTF. Had to edit this repeatedly for being ‘a bit spammy’.
Obviously, I’m signed up. But I am concerned. The level of free work should not be underestimated, nor should the difficulty of attracting and sustaining that free work. I say this despite, or because of NL’s so far successful – early days – transition to a group blog, which has a high level of freely donated contribution by practising barristers and solicitors. But even from this early point, it is clear that a lot of editorial pre-planning and management work is required to go to a group/sector blog. I’m frankly astonished that I have had so many volunteers, bluntly, it took two years of solo freebie work and sweat to get a specialist audience to the point that others see it as something worth helping to maintain. ‘If you build it, they will come’, perhaps, but the building takes a lot more time and effort than most imagine – in my case, two to three new specialist case comments every week for 18 months.
So, I love the idea of the free legal web, and I think that enquiring mind’s suggestion of an agreed semantic web syntax may well be the way to go to make the most of existing resources, but no-one should expect free large scale contribution to appear out of the ether. Ain’t going to happen.
WTF. Had to edit this repeatedly for being ‘a bit spammy’.
Nearly Legal is quite right about momentum. For example: if you want to get a wikimedia wiki of English law together (I am not suggesting we do – its as Alice would say an extreme case) you need a reasonable number of people to start with or nothing will get done.
Another lesson I learnt from the early organisation of Winter Comfort in Cambridge (volunteering in soup kitchens for the homeless) was that by attracting a lot of volunteers the organiser kept them *all* because none of them had to do very much. Its not scary to agree to work 2 evenings a term (or whatever) but a weekly commitment would have lost about 80% of volunteers if not more.
So, ways of making people think that a small contribution is worthwhile and they aren’t committing to what they cannot do is part of what makes it work. Its what makes wikipedia work (not that the register thinks so, but you know what I mean). Barristers particularly have spurts of free time and unspurts.
I’d love to spend (say) 2 days/week writing solid content for a website like this, but sadly I have to earn money etc.