Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
For the next two weeks, we'll be diving into In Formation Magazine
<https://informationmagazine.com>, which has just released its
long-awaited third issue--25 years after issue two. Its tagline:
"Every day, computers are making people easier to use."

In Formation is a cult publication exploring what technology does to
us, written by insiders who know the industry from the inside out.
Issue #3 upholds the magazine's reputation for meticulous
production: heavy stock paper, elegant design, and eclectic content
ranging from a graphic novel and photo-essay to a flexidisc of music
by The Layoffs (a band of the magazine's own art crew). The tone
blends the serious with the satirical, offering sharp critiques of
tech culture. True to tradition, the only advertisement appears on
the back cover--this time for Espolon Tequila, following
Absolut's iconic placements on the first two issues.

At over 160 pages, it's a publication to dip into slowly, a
genuine labor of love with no commercial compromises. In Formation
#3 goes into national distribution at Barnes & Noble in early
October. It's also available online: 
<https://informationmagazine.com/product/in-formation-magazine-issue-3/> and through MagCulture in the UK, https://magculture.com/>.
  

    
Our guests for the discussion are Paulina Borsook and Brian Maggi.

Paulina Borsook got a WELL acccount back in 1987 because, at the​
time, it was the only way she knew of to acquire a​
backdoor/graymarket entryway to the Internet. She is best known as a​
writer on technology and culture.

She contributed to In Formation #1; she and Brian did their first​
humor collaboration for #2 with the graphic feature, "Silicon Valley​
Alpha Males". When In Formation founder/publisher/editor-in chief​
David Temkin contacted her two years ago about participating in​
issue #3, she replied "yes boss". In the current 25th anniversary​
issue #3, she mostly contributed humor pieces plus one serious piece​
about IP/appropriation/copyright/AI/Stepford Wives. She is honored​
that David awarded her the title "contributing editor" for issue #3.

"Cyberselfish", both the original essay and the book, about the​
libertarian culture of tech, are still being read today. She has a​
serious Cassandra complex because of these and other things she​
wrote in the 1990s, such as a 1999 Salon feature on how the Internet​
ruined San Francisco. She had nothing to do with her Wikipedia page.

Brian Maggi is In Formation magazine’s Humor Editor, webmaster,​
shipping department, and social chairman. He got his start in tech​
over 30 years ago as a subject in a research project at the National​
Center for Supercomputing Applications. He worked at Apple on iconic​
and not-so iconic products including the Newton and the iMac. His​
biggest claim is inventing the email spam filter with Postini, thus​
giving the world the greatest excuse for not reading our mothers’​
emails.
  

    
Welcome, Paulina and Brian! Can you discuss why In Formation went​
away after two issues so many years ago? And why the team decided to​
bring it back, 2 1/2 decades later?
  

    
my understanding is that issues #1 and #2 (1998; 2000) were created​
during the dotcom boom, infinitely worth having at.

but then came the dotcom crash + 9/11 --- the moment had passed and​
everyone went their separate ways.

david temkin, founder/publisher/editor in chief, had just quit his​
job at google a little more than two years --- and  i guess he felt​
the time was right to bring back the publication, given how​
pervasive tech has become (what it is doing to us? and how​
wealthy/powerful tech companies have become.

most of the original crew from isssues numbers #1 and #2 have been​
involved in issue #3 --- with the addition of a bunch of new​
contributors, including the amazing and splendid art + design crew.

david has had to go back to work, with a current dayjob at paypal,​
so brian and i will attempt to answer questions as best we can.

it's worth mentioning that david had been editor-in-chief of his​
college newspaper and worked in/with many media-oriented startups.​
unusual in someone with a CS degree, david gets magazines deeply.​
that has aways given the publication a good editorial oversight. he​
also is very witty, which seems to be a default trait for  most of​
the editorial crew. we all had fun working on the​
magazine/coffeetable book--- which was one of david's goals for the​
project.
  

    
Was most of the work virtual, or did you have physical meetings? 
  

    
we had two splendid in person meeetings, about six months apart, in​
sf, early on.

the rest of the business was generally conducted with zoom, teams,​
etc. however i wasnt involved with a lot of the production issues,​
so i know david and others would meet to do stuff in the bay area;​
david and josh the design head flew to denver where the printer is​
located about six months ago to decide on paper, etc. and of course​
david flew back to denver for a press check this summer (i think​
videos of the press check are online somewhere, probably either on​
david's LI account or the magazine's LI account).

as magazines with remote contributors have been a thing for a long​
time, the remote-work aspect is pretty native to the medium. we had​
weekly 'editorial' meetings on zoom and we had slack. but obv.​
writing and editing are done however they get done, always. the​
'virtual' component with these is as it's been for decades. lots of​
phonecalls; are those virtual?
  

    
> why In Formation went away after two issues so many years ago?

One of the simpler reasons the magazine stopped after 2 issues, was​
it was a ton of work and we all had full-time jobs. This time around​
it was still a ton of work, but the maturity of collaborative tools​
made a big difference. We can work asynchronously much easier. 
  

    
We met online weekly and sometimes twice a week when working on the​
magazine. 

The in-person meetings were the best. I wish I could bottle the​
energy from the room and take a hit from it when I'm in other​
meetings. It's just a bunch of riffing and non-sequiturs. The only​
good reason to have a meeting in my opinion. That and catered​
lunches. 
  

    
but our lunches werent catered!
  

    
I sense a difference of opinion about the source of the lunches...​
who made the sandwiches? (Or was it chips and caviar?)

I'd like to hear more about the collaborative process - I count 37​
people on the masthead. Who was responsible for organizing the work​
and deciding who was in which meetings? Did it ever feel like​
cat-herding, or was it mostly well-organized?
  

    
(we sought out our own lunches from what was avail near union​
square, where our wonderful peerspace meeting place was).

my understanding is that david sought out the sort of inner​
editorial crew (10-15 folks) --- and then outreach was done to​
individual contributors as they were discovered over time. 

there was an official editorial zoom, where from anywhere from two​
ppl (david and me) to 15 ppl would show up. these are folks with​
'editor' or 'director' in their title on the masthead.

david worked with each of the contributors as an editor-in-chief​
does; there was an art/design cohort which brian was also involved​
with; and a humor cohort (brian as big cheese).

there was a bit of group collab on google docs, but a lot less than​
you might imagine. for example, i never interacted with ME alex​
lash, but he did a great job of copy/line editing.

i would say less  cat-herding and more self-organizing --- with​
certain distinct roles as mentioned above.
  

    
As people came together, what guidance did they get? I.e. what was​
the shared understanding about what the whole team was creating?
  

    
david, whom we all liked and respected and had mostly worked with​
before, asked some folks to be part of the inner crew. we all had a​
intuitive sense of what the mag's sensibility was.

so there wasnt guidance per se; we all had a sense of who possible​
contributors outside that group might be --- and sent them to david​
to talk to.

so 'guidance' came in the form of discussions on the weekly zoom. we​
talked!

this has been an all volunteer effort under the enlightened benign​
despot that is david. no one needed guidance; we all went off and​
created the things we talked about doing, occassionally asking for​
feedback..

so in that sense not a team effort: a bunch of individual efforts we​
sometimes checked in about. this worked because there was a shared​
sensibility: maybe  'know what you are talking about and dont be​
self-serious.'

david's invisible hand was the 'guidance', maybe. but he is a very​
allowing and supportive fellow...
  

    
I credit the experience level of most of the contributors for​
working from a minimal set of instructions. 

When it came to vetting ideas and concepts we tried to stay "on​
brand" a term I loathed using… a lot. Also, knowing it would take​
at least a year or more to produce the magazine, we focused on​
topics and stories that would have a longer shelf-life. 

For humor, we leaned a lot into inside baseball type of jokes. Our​
rule of thumb was not everyone had to get the joke, but those who​
do, deserve a bigger pay off. For example, "The Scrum Master" movie​
poster is an unapologetic riff on the corniness of Agile​
Methodologies. If you know, you know. 

I also know from writing humor, there are people who want to get the​
joke and are compelled to either laugh anyways, or they're compelled​
to do a little research. 
  

    
Sorry to be coming in so late - I went out of town Thursday and just​
got back last night. Slowly catching up.

I guess my first question is "why print"? I enjoyed leafing through​
In Formation, but it occurred to me that, other than NYRB (which I​
think I read in print because I find their website so painful), I​
don't read any print periodicals any more. In fact, once I plopped​
this one down on the pile of stuff I'm reading, I realized that​
there _were_ other periodicals in there - I just never read them and​
had forgotten they were there. (Worst of all, I did read one of​
them, and had left it on the stack so I could send a notice about it​
to an email list ... a year ago.)

So, a very self-referential way of asking, why print? Will there be​
an online version?
  

    
print because

a) it's a great aesthetic + sensory experience.

b) you read print differently than you do a website and can do​
things in print you really cant do on a website.

c) a few of the pieces -are- available on the​
informationmagazine.com website and maybe eventually all of them​
will be.

also, people -jumped- at the chance to work on a -magazine-. 

this is the equivalent of coffeetable book. gorgeous; meant to be​
kept around and have visitors to your place check it. this wouldnt​
happen with a website. and yes issues #1 and #2 are collectible and​
hard to find.
  

    
Thank you, Paulina. In fairness, there were several pieces (the​
graphic story, for instance) that were much more fun on the printed​
page than they would be on the web - but that only occurred to me​
after typing.

Also, I asked this in another discussion on the WELL, but who is the​
audience for this? Where will people encounter it? Is it being sold​
in bookstores? Other types of store?
  

    
we are lucky enough to have barnes + noble agree to take the 3k​
copies we have left in the warehouse to be distributed nationally.​
if we sell enough, there will be a 2nd printing.

there -are- stores which carry magazines, such as in sf heath​
ceramics/farleys/dogeared books/smoke signals, etc.

audience is anyone who appreciates good design/in partic has a sense​
of humor/cares about what tech is doing to us. so, lots of people.​
and people who work in tech (or tech-adjacent) seem very interested.​
i think 150 copies were left in the breakroom of google's AI hq in​
london...
  

    
This conversation is publicly accessible, meaning anyone can read​
it, whether or not they are a member of the WELL, which is the​
online community platform hosting this two-week discussion.

For non-members, here’s a short link for easy access:​
<https://tinyurl.com/In-Formation>.

The full link is:​
<https://people.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/556/In-Formation-Magazine-Comp
uters-page01.html>.

Both links will take you to the first page of the public​
conversation. If you are not a WELL member, we encourage you to​
visit regularly as the discussion will expand across multiple pages.​
Use the pager (dropdown menus at the top and bottom of the page) to​
navigate through the conversation as it evolves.

Feel free to share these links on social media or with anyone who​
might be interested.

While non-members cannot post directly, we welcome your comments and​
questions. You can email them to inkwell (at) well.com, and we’ll​
post them here on your behalf.

If you’d like to participate in more discussions like this,​
consider joining the WELL: <https://www.well.com/join/>. The WELL is​
an online community with vibrant, thoughtful conversations on a wide​
range of topics—an excellent alternative to the fast-paced,​
drive-by posting on social media.

This conversation will continue for at least two weeks, through​
September 22nd. Thanks for being part of it!
  

    
thanx jon for the administrative stuff. cut+ pasted this on FB + LI​
+ the magazine's slack. we'll see who might drop on by...
  

    
Was issue #3 created with a particular theme or core question in​
mind? What was the force driving a revival after 25 years?
  

    
i think just a more loosey-gooesy organic 'what do people feel like​
creating?" and 'let's see what comes in?"

driving force was really just david saying "let's revive the​
magazine --- are you in?' sort of 'cry havoc and let slip the dogs​
of war'.

obv times have changed since 25 years ago, so different things were​
on people's minds.
  

    
Here's another angle on print. It's permanent. It can't be upgraded.​
It will serve as an interesting relic in say another 25 years just​
like the previous 2 issues. Magazines are great time capsules of​
their era. My grandfather was born in 1904 and was a total hoarder​
of magazines. When he died in 1997 I went through a stash of his​
Popular Mechanics. One article that struck me was about the​
viability of commercial flight. 

Sure, we have the Wayback Machine as a way to find old websites, but​
it's horribly incomplete. And digital has a way of rewriting history​
by making the losers disappear from the record. 
  

    
so very true.
  

    
In our kick-off discussion of issue 3 we may have tossed around some​
ideas like "The AI Issue" or some kind of unifying theme. In the​
end, it was like Paulina said, "let's see what comes in". 

For the humor section we had a Google Doc full of ideas that kept​
growing. We had something of an algorithm to decide what made the​
cut. We weighted ideas on things like…

Tone: is it in our voice
Execution: how is it activated e.g. fake ad, movie poster etc. 
Originality: have we already made a similar joke in the issue or has​
someone else.

There are concepts in the doc that are laugh out loud funny that​
didn't make the cut because it wasn't enough to just be funny.​
Likewise, there were ideas that made the magazine after a tepid​
response and ended up getting bigger laughs in execution (I know I​
just mansplained how humor works).

When I pitched the probl-o-matic and I don't recall anyone laughing.​
It  was borne out of a joke I'd been making about the word​
"problematic" itself. I pictured a Ronco / Popeil device that just​
looked for things to complain about. I also have a niece who shares​
the same name as a popular spying device and she loves to tattle​
when you say a bad word.

There were several iterations of the ad that weren't landing for​
various reasons. It wasn't until I started going down the path of​
making it look like an air purifier ad from The Sharper Image that​
it gelled. 
  

    
yeah the process of what went in and what didnt make the cut was​
mysterious. i know there were ideas jon callas and i tossed around​
(as a joint effort) that sort of just fizzled out.

there is a 'just because' aspect to what made it in, imho. i think​
we all liked the idea of fake ads for academic programs, for example​
--- but execution is everything and alex's 'tech bro studies' at​
brown was just pitch perfect (we all threw some ideas and language​
at him i think because he expressed an interest in what we might​
throw over the wall).

one thing about successful publications i have noticed over the​
years is that outsiders tend to think there is a big controlling​
thepowersthatbe masonic secret agenda. whereas to me it feels more​
random: it just happened/it felt right/no one minded/let's see how​
it plays out.

right now, the tech bro fashion spread has in a way become our​
calling card --- yet i dont think brian and i -knew- it would be so​
popular. we had lots of ideas for the art that didnt get used (i​
loved brian's ideas for a sort of butterick pattern concept for​
example) --- but somehow  here we are. and ppl seem to respond to​
it.

and the meta joke there is the increasingly absurd/abstracted job​
titles are -real-, including the one for retro bio...