Twitter? It's What You Make It. The author shared his observations and personal experiences. Like him, I had been confused what's going on and thought Twitter was another fancy application. Moreover, I felt it's somewhat invasive when having followers who are strangers! So I guess that's the reason I try to avoid it. But life is not always as you had planned. The more I avoid it, the more Twitter appeared on the news: Twitter traffic surpassed Digg; Twitter might find new revenue stream, etc. I become the follower of Twitter! Click whatever headlines about Twitter. Anyway, Twitter is quite a phenomenon. I am thrilled to see someone has been through the process: reject-confuse-search-accept-embrace. Read the article if you are in the 1st or 2nd stage.
Showing posts with label User generated media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label User generated media. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wikipedia's Soul
One has to wonder when the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster will decide to include "Wikipedia" as a word. They list Google as a transitive verb in their dictionary; “to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web.” Wikipedia, surprisingly, returns no results on merriam-webster.com though it’s clearly entered our lexicon.
Wikipedia, as The Economist noted earlier this month, is the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of user-generated content on the Internet. However, the site faces an identity crisis as two competing blocs struggle to drive content. “Inclusionists” believe Wikipedia should include every aspect of human knowledge. They argue that applying stringent editorial criteria will douse enthusiasm. “Deletionists” would have the site adopt such editorial control. They counter that Wikipedia ought to be more cautious, more selective.
www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
The article prompted me to read more about this oft-used site. I Wikipediaed Wikipedia to refresh my memory about the controversy that arose when a user wrote an article about journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. that contained defamatory content. The errors went undetected for four months until Seigenthaler contacted the editors. He later wrote an Op-Ed piece in which he called Wikipedia “a flawed and irresponsible research tool." Certainly, the Deletionists must have referenced the Seigenthaler entry more than once.
I rely on Wikipedia, perhaps too much for a former journalist. Recent searches – which may betray something, I’m not sure what – include Alexis Glick, Brian Greene, Comcast, Dani Rodrik, Heroes TV, La Vie en Rose, Molly Ivins, Super Endaka, Tom Wilkinson, and The Wire Season 4. Still, I have to believe I would fall on the Deletionist side if I were an editor.
Wikipedia, as The Economist noted earlier this month, is the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of user-generated content on the Internet. However, the site faces an identity crisis as two competing blocs struggle to drive content. “Inclusionists” believe Wikipedia should include every aspect of human knowledge. They argue that applying stringent editorial criteria will douse enthusiasm. “Deletionists” would have the site adopt such editorial control. They counter that Wikipedia ought to be more cautious, more selective.
www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
The article prompted me to read more about this oft-used site. I Wikipediaed Wikipedia to refresh my memory about the controversy that arose when a user wrote an article about journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. that contained defamatory content. The errors went undetected for four months until Seigenthaler contacted the editors. He later wrote an Op-Ed piece in which he called Wikipedia “a flawed and irresponsible research tool." Certainly, the Deletionists must have referenced the Seigenthaler entry more than once.
I rely on Wikipedia, perhaps too much for a former journalist. Recent searches – which may betray something, I’m not sure what – include Alexis Glick, Brian Greene, Comcast, Dani Rodrik, Heroes TV, La Vie en Rose, Molly Ivins, Super Endaka, Tom Wilkinson, and The Wire Season 4. Still, I have to believe I would fall on the Deletionist side if I were an editor.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
AP cuts News Deal with CGM site NowPublic.com
This is an interesting sign of the times...
By combining the editorial oversight of the AP editors with the vast network of newsgathering possible through 'citizen journalists", can the AP get the best of both worlds? It seems like a good model.... Althought I would be interested in seeing how everyone gets paid. The AP says that NowPublic.com members will be compensated and recieve credit. But of course, the exact details have not been disclosed. (To be fair, they may not have figured them out yet...)
More from the announcement.
The Associated Press and NowPublic.com said Friday they had agreed to a partnership to let AP to use photographs, video and news from "citizen journalists" in its newsgathering operation.
....The AP said that in the first phase of the partnership, news and photo editors on its national news desks in New York will have the option of using selected content from NowPublic.com to supplement the work of AP journalists.
By combining the editorial oversight of the AP editors with the vast network of newsgathering possible through 'citizen journalists", can the AP get the best of both worlds? It seems like a good model.... Althought I would be interested in seeing how everyone gets paid. The AP says that NowPublic.com members will be compensated and recieve credit. But of course, the exact details have not been disclosed. (To be fair, they may not have figured them out yet...)
More from the announcement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)