<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Facilitation%3ACrowdsourcing_Spectrogram_Statements</id>
	<title>Facilitation:Crowdsourcing Spectrogram Statements - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Facilitation%3ACrowdsourcing_Spectrogram_Statements"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php?title=Facilitation:Crowdsourcing_Spectrogram_Statements&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-09-21T23:30:36Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.1</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php?title=Facilitation:Crowdsourcing_Spectrogram_Statements&amp;diff=55&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Miriam: 1 revision imported</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://facilitation.aspirationtech.org/index.php?title=Facilitation:Crowdsourcing_Spectrogram_Statements&amp;diff=55&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2016-01-08T23:58:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;1 revision imported&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;A compelling way to generate [[Facilitation:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] statements is to &amp;quot;crowdsource&amp;quot; them from participants at the event.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inform participation they are going to design statements. They need to find 4 other people they don't know (form groups of 5) and use these&lt;br /&gt;
design guidelines:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1) Keep it short and memorable. The longer the statement is, the harder it is to replay in your head. &amp;quot;Wikileaks is good for humanity&amp;quot; is a really tight, memorable statement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Make it extreme and polarizing: &amp;quot;life is ok&amp;quot; is short and memorable, but not very compelling&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;You should never use corporate software&amp;quot; is definitely a tad more likely to engender debate&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3) Make it inclusive: it needs to be a statement everyone can relate to. &amp;quot;It is more fun to party with Noam Chomsky than to party with Andrew Cockburn&amp;quot; is only relevant for those who have partied with both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then explain it is a 10-minute, &amp;quot;more is more&amp;quot; brainstorm: each group should generate 5-10 statements, each on a separate post-it note.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then at the end of 10 minutes, they should pick their best, most extreme one, and a backup, in case someone else does a similar one to their #1.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then ask who wants to go first, invite them to read their statement slow and loud a couple of times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do one spectrogram, rinse and repeat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And for groups who don't get to play their #1 statement, have those read off at the end to honor the work done.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Miriam</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>