Can readers tell the difference between images from a pro and a keen amateur?
Facebook (finally) joins the embedding party…
A great, inspirational quote about publishing. Bet you can't guess who said it…
The old Citizen Journalism chestnut rears its ugly head again in a question from a student. Here's my thoughts…
Guardian digital development editor Joanna Geary answers some questions about GuardianWitness
Liveblog of the speech the founder of Wikipedia - Jimmy Wales - gave at the FT Digital Media Conference in 2012
Liveblogging from the Media140 event on the unethical web
The first part highlighted is a clause seemingly denying anyone who uploads a picture to Twitpic the media exploitation rights for that picture; it specifically targets those businesses who might want to pay for it. The second is a more vaguely-worded catch-all clause that, in the most draconian interpretation, could deny a user from uploading their own pictures to other hosting services like Flickr.
Chris Applegate has done a thorough exploration of what’s going on and Twitpic’s moves to correct the issue.
The community gathers around its self-created experts, and with little cost structure to manage, a quality content origination process is activated. It might seem impossible that the value that publishers create will be completely removed, but as we see more and more authors, musicians, and industry experts choose to set up without a ‘publisher’, the likelihood increases. Even beyond these emergent experts, we have an ocean of what is popularly called user generated content, which is of varying degrees of quality, but on aggregate poses a substantial risk to traditional publishers.
Andrew Davies, co-founder of Idio, hits the nail on the head here (and the whole article is worth a read). Yes, people will turn to trusted brands – but those brands will often be people rather than the traditional media brands of the past. And there will be a whole range of trusted sources, from friends, through to industry experts. The question is: can you build a business out of a group of trusted individuals?
iVillage – Lulu Phongmany:
Been around for 10 years without really talking to the community about what they wanted. Very different issues drive success in message boards as opposed to content. Content seems tool-based, forums more around mutual support issues.
Food site relaunch: Editors and community managers are of equal footing in the approval process. Integrated community with content so there’s no real distinction. In essence message board content is seen as no different to anything else. 285% up on page views.
The more options for participation, the better. Bake community into the whole editorial process.
Chris Taggart – OpenlyLocal
Journalists don’t generally know much about anything – they aren’t really interested in the subject, just the story. Fine for basic, traditional reporting. It worked because they had skills and access to information other people didn’t have. And all this (cuttings libraries, directories, contacts) have been subsumed by the web. But it’s still about the stories. And they can be focal points for conversations.
Your readers know more about the subject than you do. The thought of doing journalism without involving them is terrifying.
Naked Capitalism blog is a great example of journalism done with the audience.
Newspapers get blogs wrong because they’re not used to having a conversation.
Paul Bradshaw – Birmingham City Uni, Help Me Investigate
Citizen journalism is a patronising and outdated term. It covers a ridiculously wide range of activities: accidental journalism, value adder, data analyst, the ear or eye of a group of friends…
Collaboration is about many groups, overlapping, and working in collaboration. A journalist is an ideal overlap point. Join the dots, make interesting connections. That’s what Help Me Investigate has found in its investigations.
Help Me Investigate is essentially a project management tool for collaborative investigation.
How to get people involved: Don’t ask, don’t offer tokens; lead by example. Share.