Citizen Paine | Citizen Journalism

Wikipedia: To cite or not to cite

CyberJournalist.net hones in on an excellent point that Jimmy Wales makes in an interview with BusinessWeek.

In response to a question about whether students and researchers should cite Wikipedia, Wales says:

No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level. And really, it's more reliable to read Wikipedia for background than to read random Web pages on the Internet.

It's really a key point: Some people put down Wikipedia for its inaccuracies. (Although Nature just came out with a report saying it is almost on par with Britannica on science entries.) But that misses what Wikipedia is all about. It's a place to start your research. Don't count on it as being correct, but realize that more often than not it is.

The internet is full of misinformation. At least Wikipedia has built a system that has a degree of accountability -- anyone can correct others' errors -- unlike most of what we run across on the web.

Guardian survey shows prevalence of teen blogging

The Guardian reviews the findings of a suvey of 14- to 21-year-olds in Young blog their way to a publishing revolution:

[A]mong those with a web connection at home, 31% said that they had launched their own personal site or blog. Those aged 16 to 17 have taken most avidly to personal online publishing, with a female bias.

No huge surprises in this survey. However, it's noteworthy that of the young people with internet access at home, eight in 10 reported having broadband:

The explosion in cheaper high-speed internet access, which allows quicker access to music and video files and is typically charged at a flat monthly rate, has led to an upsurge in the time web users spend online.

Some previous comments on young people as tomorrow's publishers.

Blogging again

Let's see if I can revive this puppy. Been more than busy at the job. So, no promises on how often I'll post or what form this revival will take. Let's just get on with it and see how it goes.

Even the good coupons have vaporized

At the Daily Grit, blogger Wes Thorp has some serious things to say about the role citizen journalism could play in Lansing, Michigan's mayoral and city council election campaigns. But some MSM folks probably may chafe most at this comment, a shot at the local paper:

At one time, you could at least get good coupons on Sunday.  We don't even get that now.

Thorp, citing inspiration from Amy Gahran and her I, Reporter project, is talking about holding a meet-up to organize a citizen journalism initiative:

We have troves of motivated citizens in the area who could and maybe would cover the issues of the day, like city council and township board meetings, stuff local media used to cover. ... Is it time to have a Meet-Up in our area to talk about citizen journalism and give it a whirl?

Being upfront would muffle the critics

A Milwaukee blogger was put on the defensive after a USA Today article reported that the city of Milwaukee had provided her with internet access and computer equipment. Had Erin Leffelman made that relationship clear on the blog, she wouldn't have become the target of other bloggers and critical comments on her Play in the City blog.

This isn't anything new. The state of Pennsylvania also fails to mention that it's covering the expenses of visitPA.com's Roadtripper bloggers, which I noted last month.

Leffelman and her defenders point to the level of compensation and argue that it's not significant. "I would hardly classify $1,700 of 'in-kind' support to do her job -high speed internet, a gift certificate for technology improvements at Dell or a $200 camera as the type of compensation that would sway anyone’s opinion," Dave Fantle of VISIT Milwaukee writes in a comment on The Blog Herald.

He misses the point, which is really very simple: Be transparent, be honest about your relationships. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to hide something even if you're not.

To Fantle's credit, VISIT Milwaukee's June 20 news release, which he posted on The Blog Herald, did explain the relationship. It also noted, regarding blogs, "Their impact lies largely in their credibility and growing awareness among an increasingly computer-literate world."

Rich irony in newspaper's warning about blogs

K. Paul Mallasch's take on a Missouri Valley Times editorial titled Reader beware of the truthfulness in blogs exposes the irony of the newspaper's critique of blogs. It's too bad the editorial resorts to broad generalities because its core message -- don't trust everything you read, consider the source -- is a worthwhile one.

The editorial says (emphasis mine):

[Mainstream media] maintain policies designed to minimize errors and to guard against the perpetration of libel or slander. Bloggers and their fans never worry about those constraints. There is a glorious freedom in their ability to simply "publish" whatever they please with no regard for accuracy or whether their diatribes cause pain and suffering. We of the mainstream media do not have that luxury.

While we work within the First Amendment rights to a free press, our feet are held to the fire by libel laws and the lawyers who rightly apply them to our work. Bloggers-so far-seem to be unfettered by such considerations.

Blogs, unlike the MV Times article, usually let readers make comments directly on their posts, holding them accountable.

Peoria blogger aims to shame

An anoymous blog has its sights set on those people who bring shame to Peoria, Illinois. The Shame on Peoria site launched over the weekend and appears to be affiliated with a second site, Peoria Crack House.

Describing its purpose, Shame on Peoria says:

Peoria and Pekin Illinois recently determined to go after property owners with blighted property, in "shaming" campaigns. Turnabout being fair play some citizens felt the Politicians and Bureaucrats also needed some shaming for their blight on the body politic.

And on Peoria Crack House:

Dedicated to the Buyers and Sellers of Crack Cocaine, who we hope to remove from our community.

As with the Dog Poop Girl incident, here's another example of the public using the internet as a tool for exposing perceived wrongs. Whether this exposure corrects bad behavior, I'm not sure. If it does, it probably will occur indirectly. Someone running a crack house may not shut down just because a blog has mentioned it. But the blog could spur police to act.

Link props: Peoria Pundit and PollyPeoria

When you capture breaking news, who ya gonna call?

Paul Grabowicz and Steve Outing, both posting on Poynter Online's E-Media Tidbits last week, note that it's not just the news media asking citizens to send in their eyewitness images: Law enforcement is doing the same.

Of course, it's nothing new for the police to ask citizens to provide information. What's different in the two examples cited here is that law enforcement is setting up web sites specifically for this purpose.

After the second London bombings, British police solicited citizen photos and videos, and in Malaysia, the government wants people who witness traffic offenders to post to a Hall of Shame web site.

Outing writes:

In this blog we focus on media, where grassroots-media/citizen-journalism activity is high right now. It's interesting to see how the concept can apply to other sectors of society.

Responding to Outing's post, Brendan Watson questions whether that term should be applied to what the police are seeking:

Citizen snitching, perhaps. Community watch, perhaps. But journalism? We usually call people who do this type of work either police (or in the case of citizens assisting in police work informants). Aren't you concerned that we're throwing this term around way too much to the point that it will soon be absolutely meaningless? Perhaps better term to sum up this current digital movement is personal media. ...

Another debate over terminology. In each case, citizens are being asked to report what they observe. The difference, as Watson says in the rest of his comment:

But journalism seems to envoke an intent to communicate with a mass audience, a committment to public service, and hopefully to some basic journalistic values that aren't present in much of what is currently being called citizen journalism.

What the citizen eyewitness does with the image will be much more interesting than what we call it. It won't matter much for events with multiple witnesses with cameras; some will submit to police, others to citizen journalism web sites. But what happens when one person has the key photo or video? Does he or she post to a personal blog, submit it to large media web site, go through a middleman like Scoopt, or send it to the police? My guess is that we'll see all of the above, though if citizens come to expect payment for high-demand images -- and why wouldn't they? -- the police may wind up near the bottom of the list.

Bloggers await FEC decision

At AlterNet, Kelly Hearn's Uncle Sam, Meet the Bloggers is a detailed look at how the Federal Elections Commission is wrestling with the blogosphere.

Hearn says the question of whether to exempt bloggers from campaign finance law is complex:

Without a press exemption, some bloggers might be buried by lawsuits. But what happens if millions of bloggers are suddenly given news media status?

Some say corporations and trade unions will sidestep election law by using the unregulated blogosphere to spend unlimited money on political messages.

Responding to Hearn's piece, Ash Roughani posts this comment:

It seems to me that this issue is being overcomplicated. It can be simplified through the use of analogy. If I write political commentary in my blog, it is no different than if I went out in public and started talking to people about my political positions. This is where blogs should be exempted.

However, the second I get paid by a party, candidate, or committee; this is no longer my personal express advocacy, but rather coordinated activity. I think that anyone who believes in the merits of campaign finance reform would agree that these cases ought to be regulated.

More coverage of this issue in Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post. The Post story says the FEC is expected to make a decision in the fall.

Citizen journalism labors of love

Ya gotta root for efforts like this one, and ya gotta figure it's a harbinger of what's coming for small communities that just don't have the ad dollars to support a print product: After trying since October to make a go of it with the monthly paper of Winooski, Vermont (6,387 people, according to ePodunk), editor Cathy Resmer announced this week that she's converting The Winooski Eagle to an online-only citizen journalism effort.

Last month, she wrote:

Loyal readers will remember that when I assumed responsibility for the paper last October, I took over for a group of people who were planning to shut it ... I tried everything I could to keep this paper alive, but the bottom line is that it has become a physical and financial drain for me and my family. ... I still believe Winooski needs a local news provider, a place where residents can find out the latest information about the city, the schools, the businesses and the people who make up this unique and exciting community.

In addition to the low publication costs, Resmer cites the frequent updates, site accessibility and searchability, and the citizen journalism component as advantages over the print model.