An interesting thread keeps popping up in The Globe's reporting on H1N1. As you examine the efforts of the federal and provincial governments to co-ordinate their response to the crisis only one thing appears to be more rare than the vaccine itself: information.

For example, on Nov. 11, Patrick Brethour reported that “The premiers resolved to press the federal government to give them more timely information on vaccine supplies during their own conference call last Friday. Health officials across Canada have expressed frustration that Ottawa has been slow to inform them about how much vaccine provinces and territories will get each week.”

And of course, it isn't just the provinces complaining about the feds. The feds are similarly complaining about the vaccine suppliers. In response to an unforeseen and last-minute vaccine shortage by GlaxoSmithKline (a manufacturer of the vaccine), David Butler-Jones, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, acknowledged in The Globe on Oct. 31 that “what I know today is not what I knew yesterday morning. And tomorrow I may find out something new.”

For those of you who are wondering what this shortage of information reminds you of, the answer is simple: life before the Internet. Here, in the digital age, we continue to treat the Public Health Officer like a town crier, waiting for him to share how much vaccine the country is going to receive. And the government is treating GSK like a 20th century industrial manufacturer you would bill with a paper invoice.

This in an era of just-in-time delivery, radio-frequency identification chips and a FedEx website that lets me track packages from my home computer. We could resolve this information shortage quite simply by insisting the vaccine suppliers publish a website or data feed, updated hourly or daily, of the vaccine production pipeline, delivery schedule and inventory. That way, if there is a sudden change in the delivery amount the press, health officials or any average citizen could instantly know and plan accordingly. Conversely, the government of Canada could publish its inventory and the process it uses to allocate it to the provinces online for anyone to see. Using this data, local health authorities could calculate how much vaccine they can expect without having to talk to the feds at all. Time and energy would be saved by everyone.

Better still, no more conference calls with the premiers sitting around complaining to the Prime Minister about a lack of information. By insisting on open data – that is sharing the data and information relating to the vaccine supply publicly – the government could both improve transparency, reduce transaction costs and greatly facilitate co-ordination between the various ministries and levels of government. No more waiting for that next meeting or an email from the Chief Public Health Officer to get an update on how much vaccine to expect – just pop online and take a look for yourself.

As noted by Doug Bastien over at GC2.0, the federal government has done an excellent job informing the Canadian public about the need to get vaccinated, including using social media like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube videos. Indeed, they were so successful they helped contribute to the current vaccine shortage. To ensure we respond to the next crisis successfully, however, we need more than a citizen-centric social media strategy. We need a social media and open data strategy that ensures our governments communicate effectively with one another.

Wondering if the previous week had been an outlier I read him again this weekend and was even more dumbstruck. Here was Rex Murphy deriding Obama and praising Palin ability to "connect" with her supporters.

A  few thoughts here.

First, I'm willing to grant Rex Murphy that Sarah Palin may create "a more forceful bond with her supporters than [Obama does] with his." Perhaps, but what a silly metric when used in isolation. David Koresh had a still more forceful bond with his supporters, and I'm not sure that worked out well for anyone. Obama's oratory strength isn't that he creates a powerful bond with his supporters (although he has, from time to time, done this). It's that he connects with those who don't always agree with him - he is able to reach and engage a broader audience. Sarah Palin has never done this. How often do you see an African American - or "heck" (as she would say it) anyone not white - at a Palin event?

Indeed, still more farcical is how Mr. Murphy argues Palin's inaugural speech as a vice-presidential candidate was rhetorically equivalent to Obama's speech on race (And that both were delivered under equal levels of pressure). Really? Sarah Palin's speech succeeded in generating a spark yes, but among the conservative base that already loved her. It was a speech that was populist, said little, and began a process of persuading most Americans she didn't belong in the White House. In contrast, Obama's speech arrested a decline in the polls and engaged both his supporters and doubters. All this while addressing possibly the most volatile and politically sensitive issue in the United States. 100 years from now, Obama's speech will likely be seen as an important moment in the history of race relations. Sarah Palin, to say nothing of her speech, will probably not be remembered at all. Rhetorically equivalent?

Finally, and perhaps most appalling was Rex Murphy's characterization of Obama as someone who "offers a kind of self-flattery to his worshipers. They feel exalted that they have the intelligence or sensibility to see how remarkable their man is. But he remains remote." I remember first being floored by Obama during a speech in which he did the exact opposite of this. It was January 20th and Obama walked into the heart of the African American religious community - Martin Luther King's church - on Martin Luther King Jr Day and talked about how African Americans need to work harder to live up to MLK's legacy. Specifically, he was particularly unflattering to his audience and argued that if African Americans wanted justice, freedom and equality, then the homophobia, antisemitism, and anti-immigrant resentment that sometimes exists in their community had to be acknowledged and confronted. Oh, to be flattered by Obama.

I'm a big fan of contrarian thinking which, between Wente and Murphy, seems to be all the rage at the Globe these days. But being a contrarian is difficult business and the most important rule is don't over reach. Take an argument too far and it ceases being an interesting and clever experiment and is instead reduced to just being silly. Is Sarah Palin a compelling orator. Yes! But within some fairly strict bounds. Fail to acknowledge those bounds and pretty soon you end up like Palin herself, saying something that's either foolish, or just plain wrong.

One of the claims of open source is that many eyes make all bugs shallow. However, this claim is only relevant if there is a mechanism for registering and tackling the bugs. If a thousand people point out a problem, one may find that one is overwhelmed with problems - some of which may be critical, some of which are duplicates and some of which are not problems at all, but mistakes, misunderstandings or feature requests. Indeed, in recent conversations with open source community leaders, one of the biggest challenges and time sinks in a project is sorting through bugs and identifying those that are both legitimate and "new." Cities, particularly those with 311 systems that act similar to "bug tracking" software in open source projects, have a similar challenge. They essentially have to ensure that each new complaint is both legitimate, and geuninely "new" (and not a duplicate complaint - eg. are there 2 potholes at Broadway and 8th vs. two people have called in to complain about the same pothole).

The other month Diederik published the graph below that used bug submission data for Mozilla Firefox tracked in Bugzilla to demonstrate how, over time, bug submitters on average do become more efficient (blue line). However, what is interesting is that despite the improved average quality the variability in the efficacy of individual bug submitters remained high (red line). The graph makes it appear as though the variability increases as submitters become more experienced but this is not the case, towards the left there were simply many more bug submitters and they averaged each other out creating the illusion of less variability. As you move to the right the number of bug submitters with these levels of experience are quite few, sometimes only 1-2 per data point, so the variability simply becomes more apparent.

Consequently, the group encircled by purple oval are very experienced and yet continue to submit bugs the community ultimately chooses to either ignore or deems not worth fixing. Sorting through, testing and evaluating these bugs suck up precious time and resource.

We are presently looking at more data to assess if we can come up with a profile for what makes for a bug submitter who falls into this group (as opposed to be "average" or exceedingly effective). If one could screen for such bug submitters, then a community might be able to better educate them and/or provide more effective tools and thus improve their performance. In more radical cases - if the net cost of their participation was too great - one could even screen them out of the bug submission process. If one could improve the performance of this purple oval group by even 25% there would be a significant improvement in the average (blue line). We are looking forward to talk and share more about this in the near future.

As a secondary point, I feel it is important to note that we are still in the early days of open source development model. My sense is there are still improvements - largely through more effective community management - that can yield dramatic (as opposed to incremental) boosts in productivity for open source projects. This separates them again from proprietary models which - as far as I can tell - can at the moment at best hope for incremental improvements in productivity. Thus, for those evaluating the costs of open versus closed processes, it might be worth considering the fact that the two approaches may be (and, in my estimation, are) evolving at very different rates.

(If someone from a city government is reading this and you have data regarding 311 reports - we would be interested in analyzing your data to see if similar results bear out - plus it may enable us to help you manage you call volume more effectively.)

These allegations are serious. They present numerous problems, but I'd like to highlight two: first, that our government has evolved to become willfully blind to torture; and second, that as a result, we jeopardize the Afghan mission and increase the risks to the lives of our own soldiers.

Willfully Blind:

Only slightly less distressing than learning (again) that the Canadian military was allegedly handing civilians over to local authorities who then tortured them is how the Conservatives - once so proud of the public service whistle blower legislation they helped pass - now seem intent on ignoring the issue and tarring the whistle-blower.

It is eerie to read Tory MP Jim Abbott get quoted in the Globe as saying “Out of 5,000 Canadians who have travelled through there, at least in that period of time, you were the one single person who is coming forward with this information. So you will forgive me if I am skeptical.” Of course, the fact that Richard Colvin testified that senior public servants were instructing him and others to not share or record this information is perhaps one of the reason why Mr. Abbott never heard of the problem. But then, Mr. Colvin has not been alone in raising this issue; the Red Cross and Amnesty International both tried to inform the government about this problem, to no avail.

Indeed as Paul Wells has aptly written, the Conservative machine has now embraced what he terms "the bucket defence" and is doing everything it can to sow confusion and claim this is not an issue. (Rather than trying to figure out how it is that Canadians were handing Afghan citizens over to Afghan authorities with full knowledge that they would get tortured). This is not only irresponsible, it demonstrates a lack of respect for the rule of law and human rights, and accountable government. It is also downright dangerous.

Dangerous to the mission and our soldiers:

The Globe article also included this still more frightening quote from Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant. She worries: “The fanning of the fames of outrage over allegations [of torture], however unproven, are really having the desired effect on the Canadian people of wanting our troops to return even quicker.” Note here, the truth is irrelevant, it matters not whether we are complicit in the torture of Afghans, what matters are polling numbers and support for the mission.

It was a very similar response to these allegations by the Prime Minister back in March of 2007 that prompted me to write this blog post on why torturing one's enemies increases the dangers to your own soldiers. The post was subsequently republished as a opinion piece in the Toronto Star, and since, sadly, it still relevant today, two years later, I've reposted it below:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments regarding the Liberal's "passion" for the Taliban was more than just a new low point in Canadian political debate – it also reveals the government's disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to win in Afghanistan.

For the sake of both our military and the mission, the Prime Minister would be wise to read lieutenant David Grossman's landmark book, On Killing. In the book, Grossman, a U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel and professor at West Point, describes the psychological implications of killing, both legally and illegally, in battle.

Of specific interest to the Prime Minister would be the psychological argument and historical evidence that explain why adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating PoWs humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army. In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Enemies that believe otherwise are likely to fight to the death and inflict greater casualities even in a losing effort.

During World War II, the Allies' adherence to the Geneva Convention resulted in German soldiers surrendering to U.S. forces in large numbers. This was in sharp contrast to the experience of the Soviets, who cared little for PoWs.

But one need not go back 60 years for evidence. Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, who fought in Iraq and then founded and became executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, makes a similar argument regarding today's conflicts.

Prior to the Abu Ghraib debacle, he noted how "(O)n the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives ..."

When MPs and ordinary Canadians ask questions about the treatment of Afghan prisoners they don't do so out of contempt, but out of a deep respect and concern for Canadian soldiers. Canadians know we can ill afford to treat enemy combatants inhumanely. They know this because it is in opposition to our values and our very purpose in Afghanistan.

However, they also know there is a compelling military reason: It would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity. Without this, who knows how many Canadian lives will be needlessly lost in battles where an insurgent, believing that surrender is tantamount to execution, instead opts to fight to the death.

The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about the Taliban and human rights make the government appear tough. But in reality, it only makes it dangerous, both to the mission, and our soldier's lives.

First off the project has good timing and a firm deadline around which to make suggestions. As the press release notes:

The project will generate and disseminate fresh perspectives and ideas both in the short term, as Canada prepares to host the 2010 G8 Summit next summer in Huntsville, Ontario and, more fundamentally, for the years beyond. The "Muskoka" summit will also have to co-ordinate its work with that of the new G20 summit institution that came to fruition in November 2008 as a result of the global economic crisis.

But more important is who is involved. Projects like this are never guaranteed to succeed, but at least the CIC is being forward looking with this initiative. Gone are the same old voices we frequently hear debating Canada's foreign policy. A number of the names are on the young end of the spectrum and many are impressive:

I've never met but have heard great things about Andre Beaulieu and Gerald Butts (very pleased there is a strong environmentalist voice within the group). Roland Paris is a great choice out of the academic world: young, smart and not lost in the ivory tower. Jonathan Hausman, George Roter and Mercedes Stephenson are both friends and great choices - young, thoughtful and active in the international arena. I've also had some long chats with Yuen Pau Woo - the President and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada here in Vancouver - he is very smart, thoughtful and an essential addition to the group. For a country that frequently talks about Asia, but does very little about it, his perspective is essential.

Indeed, the diversity of perspectives and overall youth of this group is its strength. As the CIC noted, they wanted a group "largely from the generation that came to age in the post-Cold War era of global horizons and digital connectedness." I think they have done well in choosing it.

I'm looking forward to hearing about the process and reading their outputs. Let's hope they generate some good discussion and debate about Canada' foreign policy.

With The GPS Project, two heads are better than one and more better yet. The CIC has assembled a panel of 13 emerging leaders to assist with this project. All in the ascendancy of their careers, the panelists are drawn from diverse career paths and largely from the generation that came to age in the post-Cold War era of global horizons and digital connectedness. The promising, upcoming leaders committed to working together on The GPS Project are:

When I think of Open Data many ideas come to mind. Applications like Vantrash were an early success, but what Jer has done with the BC Government's Budget is another piece I hope will emerge: data that is transformed into educative and compelling graphics that border on art. On the CBC Power & Politics last week (1:50:36) I made this my "blog of the week." And as I said on the show, if the Globe and Mail wants to compete with the New York Times and its cool multimedia work (like this piece on the Berlin Wall), get a guy like Jer on contract,

The Bitch is Back by Andrew Corsello (via David Hume)

A scathing piece in GQ magazine (have I ever read a GQ magazine article before?) about Ayn Rand. It pretty much sums up everything you've ever thought about Ayn Rand but were too polite to say. Bonus points go to this piece for the great Hitchens quote:

"as a fiction writer, she's absurd," says author and Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, who is arguably the most opinionated Homo sapiens since Rand herself. "But if you're young and not particularly wanted and not particularly brilliant, reading Atlas Shrugged provides all the feelings of compensation one might need for any period of terrifying inadequacy."

Oh, and just in case those on the left are starting to feel smug about the Right's tautological hero and her prescribes a path to superiority, I caution you to pause. It is still early days but I'm beginning to feel like Ken Wilbur is the Left's emerging Ayn Rand and Integral Theory is its Objectivism. The material cannot be tested or proven, its lengthy and inaccessible, its definitely uncompromising, and for more extreme adherents, both theories lay out a theory of hierarchical development that I fear allow those at the "top" to be, at best, paternalistic and at worst, contemptuous, to those below.

Can D.I.Y. Supplant the First-Person Shooter? by Joshuah Bearman (via Lauren Bacon)

For those who believe video games could be art. More interestingly, it hints at how the future of entertainment may either be flatter than we thought, or the long tail of the market could be richer than many supposed. Either way, the video game is going to play a bigger role in our fragmented culture. Bonus points in this one for money quotes, insights and positive role contributed to the discussion by local boy and video game superstar Clint Hocking.

It's Time to Rethink Forest Management: More Subsidies Will Not Succeed by Susanne Ivey-Cook

I'm a policy wonk. And this piece is bang on. It's long past due that rethink how we allocate and use our forests. These are public owned goods and we need to ensure that they get used in a way that maximizes their value to tax payers and meet our ecological/sustainability goals. Definitely worth the quick read.

Yes, I've been really impressed with the launch and the associated campaign. Yes, my parents are cancer researchers and I (literally) grew up in lab. Yes, the website and videos are beautifully done. Yes, the Charter is well crafted, balancing both the opportunities created, and the rigor demanded, by science with the ethics that should guide all human endeavors. And yes, I believe in both the potential of stem cell research to create new cures and medical treatments and improvements to the quality of our lives this will foster.

But I signed the charter because at my core, I believe science to be one of the simplest, noblest, and purest pursuits available to humanity. It is the one endeavor in which, I believe, we come closest to understanding the unknowable truth about who we are, where we are, and how we got here. Stem cell research is an important part of that endeavor. The choice isn't between banning it or not. The choice is do we conduct this research the way we should all science: openly, ethically, and in pursuit of the truth. This is what the Charter says to me.

But then, that's just my reason. I hope you'll have your own. If you do, I also hope be part of The Stem Cell Charter Sign & Share Rally that is running from now until Saturday. So check out the site and sign the charter! (copied below).

If you are really keen you can also:

• Learn more about the Stem Cell Charter and stem cell research. (The side has some pretty cool content including 12 mini-videos by clicking on "Renew the World". Trust me - the scientists are real, not actors.)
• Digg the site
• Post links on facebook (and become a fan of The Stem Cell Charter)
• Tweet using the hashtag #stemcellcharter (and follow @stemcellcharter)
• Blog about why you've signed the Charter and why you think others should (like I have)

The Charter:

The Stem Cell Charter maintains that stem cell science has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine, develop treatments for diseases and create unprecedented hope for humanity.

The Stem Cell Charter affirms that, “[e]njoyment of the highest attainable state of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” - WHO, Constitution (1946)

To that end, the Stem Cell Charter upholds the following principles:

• Responsibility to maintain the highest level of scientific quality, safety and ethical probity
• Protection of citizens from harm and the safeguarding of the public trust and values
• Intellectual Freedom to exchange ideas in the spirit of international collaboration
• Transparency through the disclosure of results and of possible conflicts of interest
• Integrity in the promotion and advancement of stem cell research and therapy for the betterment of the welfare of all human beings

Endorsing the Stem Cell Charter is a collective call to action. By signing the Charter, we commit as individuals and organizations:

• To affirm the importance of stem cell science for humanity
• To advance stem cell science and the principles articulated in the Charter
• To disseminate the Stem Cell Charter

To lend our voice, time or other resources to advancing stem cell science as part of the Stem Cell Charter community, the Foundation or other related stem cell organizations or groups

As I tell my friends, I have the world's largest pantry and workshop in my basement... I just don't own anything in it yet.

Sounds weird? It would. And, it is awesome.

The building is called The Rise and yesterday, a few more people across the country got a chance to read about how great it (and other mixed-use developments are) are with the publication of Frances Bula's piece in the Globe about it.

The piece (oddly) doesn't even mention the green roof and garden we have in the middle of our complex. It does however go into significant detail about mixed use developments. Also odd is that the piece has the weird subtitle of "but not everyone is on board" where the reservations are few and limited to people in Toronto who, I suspect, have never seen the building:

In spite of that, many Torontonians, such as Mr. Klein and Mr. Jackson, are skeptical about Vancouver's radical experiments in putting people on top of giant stores.

"The jury is very much out on the idea of residential on top of big box, like we're seeing in Vancouver," Mr. Klein says.

But Vancouver's planning director, Brent Toderian, said he believes the Rise is a wonderful new example of mixed use. It's one that the city went out of its way to encourage.

From my perspective, the jury is only out for those who've never lived or visited this place.

For a man that regularly rails against the lack of political imagination in this country it is odd to see him shut down debate and present us with a narrow (Bush-styled) choice he usually loathes: our planet or our country. As a red blooded Canadian the choice for Rex is easy. The costs of climate change can be ignored since they will be born by my children in some hard to quantify future. In contrast, the political costs of acting (which he will witness) are "real" and "reckless."

What is sad is that we've been here before. One wonders what Rex would have said in the 30's or 60's about asbestos mining. Here is a mineral for which there was overwhelming evidence that there was a negative impact on miners especially, and citizens generally, that came into contact with it. Indeed as early as 1935 senior executives in two of the largest firms in the industry - Raybestos Manhattan and Johns-Manville - secretly agreed that "our interests are best served by having asbestosis receive the minimum of publicity." But the growing scientific literature from the 30's-60's that suggested asbestos had serious negative side effects didn't matter. For one there were asbestos deniers (those contrarian thinker-types Rex would love), such as J. Corbett McDonald, a McGill professor who received $500,000 in research funding from Quebec Asbestos Mining Association and determined that contaminants in the environment, not asbestos, cause lung tumours seen in Canadian workers. Phew!

Looking back, we can see now that Asbestos was massively damaging and deeply, deeply costly. Asbestos is so problematic and has created so much exposure to the insurance industry that much of it remains unresolved today. In many countries the government simply had to offer direct compensation packages since the liabilities were too great to be covered. This is to say nothing of site and building cleanups (like out parliament buildings which are currently spending 10s millions to have the asbestos removed from). In total, we are definitely talking about 100s of billions of dollars. Possibly over a trillion dollars in costs over the last two-three decades. And that's just in Canada.

Of course, back in 1960s and 70s talking about shutting down the abestoes industry would have posed a threat to national unity too. Most of Canada's asbestoes mines are located in Quebec and so confronting this future risk (that science strongly suggested was imminent) would have required political leadership and tackling regionalism.

Thank god we didn't. Our inaction spared us having to address the political consequences. Instead we've only had to deal with billions of dollars in lawsuits, tens of thousands (likely many more) lives cut short by cancer and other illnesses, and locking parts of our economy into a dying industry which the world was less and less interested in.

What's most sad? We haven't stopped. Prime Minister Harper continues to try to block a UN environmental agreement (the Rotterdam Convention) that would list chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substances. His political quote on the issue: The Liberals are being "duped and manipulated by extremist groups," and that the other national parties are urban-focused and don't understand regional issues like asbestos. Of course, by blocking the convention Canada can continue to sell asbestos without informing purchasers - especially those in developing countries (one of the few markets left) - that it is hazardous. Yeah us!

Rex flawed logic is summed up when, in his article, he says:

Should some global warming action plan attempt to put the oil sands and Western energy development at significant disadvantage, or draw taxes out of the economies of the Western provinces to pay for adventures in global warming policy, we will be playing with Confederation.

In short, it doesn't matter how serious an issue is. If it the politics are too difficult - we shouldn't act. Indeed, I can imagine him using the same logic back in the 70s writing about asbestos, saying something like:

Should some asbestos regulatory regime place Quebec asbestoes mining at significant disadvantage, or draw taxes out of the economy of Quebec to pay for adventures in health and safety policy, we will be playing with Confederation.

Yes, we would have. And it would have been the right call. That's what political leadership is Rex. I'm sorry you're not interested in it.

Most often I sense people misunderstand Twitter because they compare it to a text based internet tool they do know: e-mail. This reference point shapes their assumptions about Twitters purpose and leads them to ask questions like: how can you read all those tweets? or how can you "follow" 250 people? If the unsaid assumption is that twitter creates 2000 new emails a day to read - well no surprise they're running for the hills! This is doubly true if you believe the myth that all people tweet about (and thus read) is their breakfast menu, or what they are doing in a given moment.

Twitter is not email and while it has many (evolving) uses I've found the best metaphor for explaining how my friends and I use it is a much simpler technology: the newspaper.

Few people read every (or even most) articles in a newspaper - indeed most of us just scan the headlines when we see a newspaper. Likewise, very few people read all their tweets. Indeed, many of us go days (guilt free) without ever looking at the newspaper - same with Twitter, many people go days without looking at their twitter feed. The difference is that your newspaper's headlines only change once a day and it is awkward to carry the thing around with you. Twitter's headlines are always changing, and its located on your blackberry or iphone.

Now the difference from email becomes more clear. There is no obligation - or even expectation - of readership with Twitter. Emails you have to (or are supposed to) read and, let's face it, are often a chore to get through. Newspaper articles you choose to read, often for pleasure or consumption.

Indeed, as Taylor and I outlined in Missing the Link, Twitter is better than a newspaper in many ways since you get to choose the columnists whose headlines you'll scanning. Whereas a newspaper brings together articles, ideas and information someone else thinks you should care about Twitter brings together the ideas, articles and information by people you care about. I follow a number of "thought leaders" people like Clay Shirky, Jay Rosen, Andrew Potter, Tim O'Reilly, David Weinberger, etc... along with some friends and colleagues. While they occasionally say short pithy things, they are usually linking to articles that they find interesting. In short, some of the smartest people I know, and some I don't, are essentially creating a vetted reading list for me. This virtual community is my news editor.

Better still, I don't always have a newspaper on me. But an endless stream of articles vetted by smart people is always just a click away so whenever I have a spare moment - on the bus, in line at the grocery store, or waiting for a taxi - I can pull up some interesting reading material I would otherwise never have read.

I don't claim this is Twitter's only use, so it's not complete, comprehensive explanation, but I've found this explanation has helped a number of my non-web savvy friends to "get" Twitter.