Academics with geek in their blood and geeks who hang out on college campuses might be interested in this new(ish) find: The Journal of Virtual Worlds Research.

It’s not a gaming journal. Rather, it proposes to look at

developments in virtual reality and gaming both in terms of technologies and conceptualization

The Journal currently has a call for papers on Social Identity and Consumer Behavior in Virtual Worlds. Deadline is August 15^th.

Some of the most creative stuff comes from conservation and animal protection organizations, like this piece from the WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society).

Yup, that’s a full size whale.  And if you wait long enough, you get to see a lot of it. Discretely, but just so cleverly tucked into the top left-hand corner is a box to “click here and close” the application. I accidentally rolled over it, and the following slogan popped up:

Think before you close this window. This might be the last life size whale you will ever see.

With a link to their website, http://www.stopbloodywhaling.org/.

Granted, when I clicked on the link, it didn’t actually go anywhere. Still, clever, very clever.

PublicWorldOpinion.org just released its report on international public opinion, internet censorship, and media freedom.

They polled 18,122 people in 20 nations: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Britain, Egypt, France, Iran, Jordan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Palestinian Territories.

Some of the findings:

• 81% of people surveyed around the world say the media freedom is important.
• Around 51% of those surveyed worldwide prefer media freedom without government control – even if government controlled will prevent the media from publishing politically destabilizing information. This includes, interestingly enough, 96% of those surveyed in Peru.
• 71% of those polled in China say that “people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet. Only about 21% agree with the government’s limitation on access to information online.
• 63% percent of those surveyed in Jordan and 44% of those surveyed in Iran do not endorse full access to the Internet.

What is the Internet useful for in political campaigns?

The general consensus of many of the “old guard” political consultants that I have come in contact with is that the Internet is not a successful tool for driving messages. This group believes that the best way to promote a campaign’s messages is through earned media and paid advertisements on television, cable, radio or print media. Messaging is considered the top priority of campaigns and is central to the majority of their actions. Part of this disbelief regarding the Internet’s potential among “old guard” consultants certainly derives from a fear that they can’t control their message online (something that has been debated online since the Dean campaign). However, many consultants believe that, regardless of online message control, it is impossible to convince people of anything through Internet tactics.

There isn’t a political consultant in their right mind who would advocate completely ignoring the Internet. However, the Internet is not considered to be the top priority in lower budget campaigns because political consultants don’t see evidence that the Internet can convince people that their candidate/cause is better than their opponent’s.

The real question boils down to this: What kind of medium is the Internet? Is it a reach medium? Or is it a reinforcement medium?

To clarify, I consider a reach medium to be one where a message distributed on the medium reaches and is consumed by a population of people. Thus, if the message is effective and the consumer is receptive, the message will impact the person’s opinion on the matter at hand. Television and the radio are the best examples of reach mediums. They both amass large audiences and more importantly they affect the opinions and decisions made by those consuming them.

Whereas, a reinforcement medium is one where people explicitly seek out opinions similar to their own and through consumption strengthen those opinions. Niche publications and ideologically affiliated publications are the best example of reinforcement media. There is certainly an argument to be made that certain television channels and radio stations are reinforcement media. However, as a whole I view media to fall on a spectrum falling somewhere in between a pure reach medium and a pure reinforcement medium.

“Old guard” political consultants would argue that based on people’s online habits, they use the Internet to reinforce preexisting opinions, rather than seeking out information from both sides of an issue in order to choose a stance. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an academic study based on whether or not the opinion of “old guard” political consultants is accurate on this issue.

As such, one of IPDI’s next major research projects will be to look into the political information consumption habits of people. I believe any research must combine survey data similar to the Pew Internet & American Life Project with a controlled experiment that specifically watches people’s consumption habits.

We are looking for input on how such a study could be conducted. My current thoughts entail giving people a news story about a topic such as the economy, global warming or foreign affairs. Following the article the research subject would be provided with a list of stories from a variety of ideologically coded news sources, which they would be required to click on at least one. The experiment would be preceded and followed by a questionnaire regarding their views on the issues at hand, in order to determine how their opinion changed over the course of the exercise.

Do you think an experiment in this style would work? Do you have any ideas to improve the study? Please email me at akellner@ipdi.org.

Caveat: If the Internet is jus t a reinforcement medium, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is fairly substantial anecdotal evidence that the Internet is very successful at rallying the base and invoking them to take action. A recent example is the number of people who have volunteered for the Obama campaign that was initiated and often carried out entirely online.

Right now, I’m watching the President of the Utah State Senate on my desktop.

Nope, it’s not a live stream of C-SPAN coverage. It’s not even footage on the Utah State Senate’s YouTube Channel (though there is that, too). There’s also a blog and a text message application and a podcast.

I’m watching Senate President John Valentine’s office on a live webcam. I can see what he’s doing and – most importantly – with whom he is meeting. So can you. Explorer users only (sorry, Mac and Firefox users) can go to http://senatesite.com/senatesight.html.

It feels intimate, open, and exciting – three words not always associated with the online communications of an elected officials. This afternoon, I talked with the creator of the SENATEcam, Ric Cantrell, the Chief Deputy of the Utah State Senate. Cantrell says the web cam “Serves to demystify the halls of power.” As he explains it, somewhere in Utah, an elementary student might access the web cam as part of a school project and realize, looking into the Senate President’s office that “this is what I want to do when I grow up.”

Why do I like it? Instead of talking about what he does all day, Senate President Valentine is showing it. He’s walking the democratic walk, not just talking the democratic talk.

Of course, there is the little voice inside me – the one who sat through several course on the philosophy of science. “But the web cam is just like a microscope,” says the little voice “and when you put things beneath a microscope – when you observe thing s—the way they behave starts to change.” But that little voice gets quieter and quieter the more I play with SENATEcam. A louder voice emerges, and it’s saying “FTW!!1!” Translation: “Cool!”

This post is guest-blogged by Bryce Cullinane, a graduating senior at SUNY Stony Brook.

I had the opportunity to meet with the acting Surgeon General today, it just so happens that he graduated from my university, SUNY Stony Brook. In his lecture he talked about child obesity and alcohol in college. It was a good lecture, but it was his demonstration of a TV ad that rattled me.

He played a spot showing NFL football players walking into the home of middle-age school boys, scolding them for their inactivity and encouraging them get outside and “P-L-A-Y, Play!” The sense of brilliance with which the Surgeon General bestowed upon the ad was shocking. It was like the southwest passage had just been discovered before our eyes.

After the lecture I asked him what he thought about the role that not only TV, but the internet held for educating the public. He told me that “it holds amazing potential.” Prodded further, he could only name “Facebook,” as an example. I asked him if his communication’s office was working on developing internet tools and strategy, and to this I got a frank, “no, but it is a really good idea.”

For a man whose duty it is to “protect and advance the health of the Nation through educating the public” I am a little concerned that using TV ads are considered cutting edge, and that developing internet strategy is a “really good idea.” These should be old news. Granted, the Department of Health and Human Services website does have useful information, but “flashy media” and interactive tools are almost non-existent.

I walked back to my dorm this afternoon a little skeptical. With internet resources like WebMD and newspaper health-blogs, will government health agencies become outpaced and out-legitimized by internet-savvy organizations? Or will they be able to cure their own digital diseases in time? Hold on to your stethoscope.

Rad Campaign just posted interviews with leaders in the nonprofit/social networking space.

We particularly like this quote from Tara Hunt, founder of Citizen Agency:

Using Twitter and Facebook to merely disseminate information is akin to just constantly withdrawing, but never depositing into your bank account. The power of these networks is in the connections people are making, which is the building of social capital. You build social capital through positive interactions - listening as much as you are talking, and responding to people as they talk to you. The more two way conversations you have on Twitter and Facebook, the more support you will gain for those messages you send out.

The Campaign Finance Institute just released its latest figures on small donors to the three major presidential candidates.

Here are my top notes:

March

Percent of contributions in March that came in amounts of $200 or less:

• Obama – 60%
• Clinton – 58%
• McCain – 18%

Cumulative

Amount the three major presidential candidates have raised from small (under $200) and large (over $200) donations since January 1, 2007

OBAMA

• $101 million from small donations.
• $83 million from large donations.

*CFI notes that Obama has raised almost as much from small donors as all the candidates raised combined by this point in the 2004 election ($105 million).

CLINTON

• $44 million from small donations.
• $82 million from large donations.

MCCAIN

• $16 million from small donations.
• $45 million from large donations.

Looking back at 2004

CFI suggests that we haven’t seen much of an increase in small donations since 2004. By this time in the 2004 cycle, Democrats raised 33% of their money from small donations and 48% from large ones. In 2007-2008, those figures are 37% and 46%.

In 2007-2008, Democratic and Republican candidates raised $135 million in small donations and $138 million more in large donations that the candidates in 2004.

Shannon Raybold is the Internet Director at the United Nations Foundation, where she oversees online organizing and fundraising for the Foundation and our campaigns. One of her recent campaigns is NothingButNets.net, which uses an online game to raise money for and build awareness about the Foundation’s anti-malaria program.

Shannon and I spoke by email about the campaign.

What did you create?

We created an interactive online game for our anti-malaria campaign, Nothing But Nets (www.NothingButNets.net). The game, Deliver the Net, shows supporters a glimpse of how their life-saving $10 donation of a bed net is distributed to those in Africa - it allows you to pick up the nets from a UN truck and jump over the hurdles to deliver the bed nets to awaiting villagers. And, each time someone plays the game and signs up, a generous donor will send a real bed net on their behalf. The game is educational and functional.

Why did you decide to use an online game?

We are constantly trying to reach out to new supporters as well as enable people to more fully understand the need and the steps that are taken to ensure the bed nets are delivered. Additionally, a generous (and anonymous) donor has committed to donating a real net for each new person who plays the game and signs up and we thought that such a generous offer should be accompanied with a new type of fun engagement.

How successful has it been?

It has been very successful, we’ve had over 10,000 people play the game, our traffic has more than doubled, and donations have also increased. After 20 days of gamming, we’ve been picked up by over 55 blogs.

What did you learn from doing it?

It was a longer, more complicated process to set it up than I thought it would be, but well worth the experiment! I also learned that what people want in terms of difficulty varies widely – I’ve gotten requests for much harder and others who find it difficult. I think we’ve reached a very different audience with this game and gotten them excited about how easy and cheap it is to prevent malaria which kills a child every 30 seconds in Africa.

I just wanted to link to a new Obama supporter-created online video that has been making waves in the Internet over the past couple days. Barack Obama as Rocky and Hillary Clinton as Apollo Creed.

Baracky: The Movie (note: I’m having trouble embedding this, so I have to only link)

I touched on political online video a few months ago here, and this new video definitely holds true with my earlier thoughts. At first watch, this video seemed to be a little wonkier than the all-appealing Yes We can, Hillary 1984 and Obama Girl videos. While I still believe that Baracky:The Movie’s target audience understands and closely follows electoral politics, it succeeds in drawing in the general public with its use of the Rocky theme, one that is especially fitting for today’s Pennsylvania primary. The metrics back up its viral appeal because as of today Baracky: The Movie has received over half a million views.