User:Maurreen/Journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a discussion about a possible new wiki about journalism.

Contents

[edit] Possible participants

These Wikipedians have expressed interest.

  1. Maurreen
  2. SlimVirgin
  3. Fuzheado
  4. Sheldon Rampton

I think that if this is going to be able to build steam to take off sometime, a critical mass is needed. I don't know how much. Maybe at least five or 10 people willing to contribute at least a little every week.

So I'm interested in suggestions on how to build interest and other possible participants. Maurreen 17:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible content, etc.

In order to give it user value over Wikipedia, it would need to do something Wikipedia doesn't or have something that Wikipedia doesn't or draw people that Wikipedia doesn't. Maybe it might be better to just get more journalists to contribute to related articles on Wikipedia.

Or maybe it would be good to have journalism-focused effort within Wikipedia.

On the other hand, a new wiki could maybe:

  1. Critique news organizations, both as products and places to work.
  2. Critique news sources as sources. (This one's a little radical; just food for thought.)
  3. Give more how-to's.
  4. Be a base for journalists as activists on journalism issues, such as anonymity.
  5. Give interaction between the press and the public.
  6. Keep up with industry news (such as at http://www.poynter.org/medianews/, but better).
  7. Have culled and annotated links (internal, external or both) to make info on many specific related topics easy to find (more or less like http://www.ikeepbookmarks.com/Editor but on a larger scale). But possibly that could be done through just an open links program.
  8. Be more international and otherwise broader, and of course more interactive, than many current journalism sites.

The next text, from Fuzheado, is copied from Maurreen's talk page. Maurreen 17:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I think it's a good idea. Some possible content:

  • AP Stylebook type stuff, but would be Creative Commons so could be printed and used all over
  • Expanding on some existing content in Wikipedia, such as Journalism fraud
  • Expanding on [1] type content, such as a guide to newspapers and media groups, from Sulzburger to Scaife
  • Case studies

This could be part of WikiCities, or could be a WikiBook, or another project altogether. Let me know what you think. Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like Fuzheado's ideas. I think case studies especially could be good (but I'm less sure about my skill in that aspect).

I also think WikiCities could be a good venue, from the little I know of it. I can see a WikiBook down the road. But for now I think it's better to take advantage of the dynamic and interactive aspects of the Internet. Maurreen 17:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] well ...

This reporter's first thought is that Romanesko, E&P, CJR, media blogs, ombudsmen, etc. etc. is too much online journalism-watching to keep up with already. (No wonder I never have time to meet my colleagues at the bar any more!) But I'll confess ignorance: While I've been wikipedia-ing for a couple years, I have never looked at any other wiki. Is there an existing wiki that you're thinking of as a model for this project? - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David, I see your point. And I think I have a couple to counter it. One key is the word "watching." Although many of the various current journalism sites have some interactivity, they're basically two-tier systems -- the content producer and the audience. A wiki builds a community and produces and edits the material. That can have direct immediate and indirect or intangible effects.
For the same reasons that Wikipedia is aimed at building a better encyclopedia via the community, the collaboration and the mass of numbers, a journalism wiki would ideally evolve into the best journalism site on the Web.
Whether you are looking for a given subject within journalism, or have knowledge about that subject, the wiki could organize it all in one place.
For one example, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Romensko is the best site on industry news. Probably thousands of people look at that page regularly. But it's only chronological. A wiki would allow the same information to be sorted by subject. But it needn't be confined to news.
About another wiki as a model, no, I don't have one, at least not yet.
That's at least partly because I envision that this could be narrow concerning the subject but broad concerning the approach or applications.
Some of it could be fairly similar to Wikipedia. But it might be more liberal concerning links and how-to's. But the whole of it probably couldn't be accomplished through Wikipedia because Wikipedia discourages discussion of the issues, and this would encourage that discussion.
Hope this is helpful. Maurreen 06:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, this could be more international. Maurreen 06:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great idea!

I think it would be entirely appropriate to use [2] (formerly Disinfopedia) for this purpose. It would save someone the work of having to launch and maintain their own separate wiki. We could group articles around a category or group of categories such as "journalistic standards." As Maurreen stated above, Wikipedia's NPOV policy discourages "discussion of the issues," but SourceWatch has a somewhat different editorial policy than Wikipedia. We don't insist on NPOV. Instead, we strive for "fairness and accuracy," while allowing greater leeway for people to express a point of view. SourceWatch is also willing to be "liberal concerning links and how-to's." We're also working on developing some tools that make it easier to interconnect chronological "news" and blog postings with the encylopedic, non-chronological approach of a wiki.

I'm glad to see this idea being floated. I've already been having some conversations with people interested in starting a discussion aimed at raising awareness and support for journalistic standards and ethics, particularly as they apply to new media such as online journalism. We thought we'd start by referencing existing standards put forth by groups such as the Society of Professional Journalists and inviting people to participate in editing and developing them further. --Sheldon Rampton 22:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheldon, thanks for the enthusiasm and the generosity concerning [3].
I hope my reply doesn't seem ungenerous, but I have some concern that SourceWatch could give the perception of a liberal association.
Another option is a wiki farm, such as Wikicities. Maurreen 09:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I share Maurreen's view on this - SourceWatch content could (and should) be part fo the content for the site. But for the widest possible involvement, I think a "clean room" approach would be best, to start out with a blank slate and buildup content that could meet something like Wikipedia's NPOV ideal. Perhaps that's why even Wikicities may not be the ultimate solution, as it has Google AdWords which has been criticized of late (see [4]) and might undermine some "credibility" issues. As folks who work with media outlets all the time, I'm sure you can imagine the possible gripes from journalism purists, so it would be good to get it right from the start. Fuzheado | Talk 00:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There would be complaints about any form of funding. I think, other than public donations, Google Adsense is one of the less controversial means. Angela. 16:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about the "perception of a liberal association" with regard to SourceWatch. Consider it an offer, pure and simple. Take it or leave it as you please. As for Angela's comments, I think actually someone would find a way to complain even about funding from public donations. Otherwise, she's right that Google Adsense is one of the less controversial means of funding. We're using Google ads now on SourceWatch, and I don't think we've gotten a single complaint about them. --Sheldon Rampton 18:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Draft mission statement

Journawiki aims to serve the public by becoming the best online community and resource for improving journalism and citizens' understanding of it.

Options for our collaboration include developing journalism-related:

  • Activism
  • Articles
  • Best practices
  • Case studies
  • Critiques
  • Discussions
  • Guidelines
  • How-to's
  • Mentoring
  • Online training
  • Reference help
  • Research
Maurreen 12:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status

I requested a wiki at wikicities. Maurreen 13:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This now exists at journalism.wikicities.com. Angela. 16:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
And I've started seeding it. Maurreen 22:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)