Might as well forward to the rest of the mailing list. Thank you for emailing it to me

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stevenfruitsmaak steven_fruitsmaak@hotmail.com Date: May 7, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: Wikinews e-mail: Participatory Journalism document To: Bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com

Hi,

I thought you might be interested...

kind regards, Steven Fruitsmaak

--------------------------------------------------------

WikiNews: Participatory Journalism in a Wiki

The term 'wiki' is a term which means 'a collaborative website which allows visitors to remove, edit, add, and change its content', and is proving to be invaluable to the idea of participatory journalism online. Participants in a wiki can add their own insights to the content already present on the website, or can add content of their own, to get feedback from the rest of the community. It is a highly beneficial ground for exchanging ideas, and when used correctly, can be a breeding ground for information, journalism, and media. For example, the LA Times decided to try out a wiki by using it on their website, in conjunction with an editorial entitled "War and Consequences," a temporary venture in the world of contributory works which showed that readers can add lively contributions to such an article.(Dorroh, 50) A more permanent venture into the world of journalistic wikis is the website WikiNews.Org. Wikinews is a site where citizens of all ages and backgrounds can contribute to or write their own journalistic content, in an environment where neutrality is encouraged, and bias is weeded out in an attempt to get the straight facts about a story to the masses. Volunteers who wish to provide "reliable, unbiased, and entertaining news" strive to either write original, neutral articles, or take the biased articles of other news media and weed out the partiality present in those stories to get to the heart of the news. But who are the people behind this groundbreaking venture into participatory community journalism? Wikinews is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization which keeps Wikinews and associated sites like Wikipedia and Wikimedia running through donations. All the sites run by the Wikimedia Foundation function under a Free License agreement which allows the website to link and post sources from various other media sources, including other journalistic endeavors like online articles from established news organizations and media on TV. According to Steven Fruitsmaak, an administrator of the site, Wikinews is "free of advertising, and not influenced by our sponsors." Amy Gahrain, a freelance writer and blogger, made the statement that "News organizations could offer wiki-based backgrounders and tutorials on important public topics—with a focus on the news value and public-interest aspects," in reference to how regular news media could use the technology of Wikinews and similar projects. Fruitsmaak also comments that most of the users of Wikinews are citizens with an interest in the news, with maybe 2% of the Wikinews population having a job in the field. Those who use the site are focused on reporting the news, and opinion writing like the LA Times experiment are discouraged, and opinions "should be blogged" instead of offered as fact in an article. But how do we ensure that the articles presented on Wikimedia aren't just the blogged opinions mentioned earlier? In the website's Frequently Asked Questions section, the website administration answers the question, by stating that "Our goal is that you can trust us more than you can trust other media, because we tell you exactly what we know and with what level of certainty we know it." (FAQ, #3) According to the answered question, the citizen journalists on the site must quote where their information is from, even if it is from an anonymous source who had contacted the Wikinews reporter. In that respect, those who use the site to get their news know with more certainty just how much of the article they can believe wholeheartedly, and which parts should be looked into on the reader's own time, and "blogged opinions" are removed if found. There is also the question of whether or not the articles on Wikinews are considered to be pure journalism by other news media. According to Jennifer Dorroh, who wrote the article "Wiki: Don't Lose That Number," most traditional news media are at a complete loss when it comes to the technology of the wiki. While it is a very good tool for allowing citizens to do things such as aid the newspaper in its core mission of investigation, traditional media is struggling with a "loss of control" because of the input aspect of wiki technology. In the article Nora Paul of the University of Minnesota states that "The medium has always been, 'You'll take what we give you and you'll like it or you won't but here it is.' Nor the audience wants to have individual control over the news it gets through news alerts, filters and the ability to contribute and talk back." (Dorroh, 51) Wikinews administrators and collaborators, however, consider their venture to be 100% journalism, according to Fruitsmaak. "As I see it, we are doing a great job with less money and despite our lack of training in and experience with journalism (compared to normal journalists)," says Fruitsmaak. Wikinews not only encourages original news reporting, but the quality of "synthesis" articles is "sometimes equal, but always free and more neutral" when compared to the offerings of normal journalism media. The main question to consider, though, is how well do wikis work in general, as both a source of journalism and as information sharing projects? As with all undertakings involving an environment where everyone is free to contribute, there are occasionally those who abuse the privilege, and problems crop up that are special to this venue of information and idea sharing. Barb Palser, in an article entitled "Coping with Jerk Swarms," talks about the fate of the LA Times experiment mentioned earlier. The project was shut down because of contributors, in the spirit of vandalism, flooded the editorial with foul language and pornographic photographs. The project was subsequently shut down with an apologetic note from the editors. Palser mentions that this is a growing problem in attempts made by traditional media competitors to embrace the wiki's "spirit of open dialogue". She states that "the problem of the jerk who wrecks it for everybody is a growing headache. Not only are news sites ill-equipped to deal with a flash flood of violent language and dirty pictures, but their stature and visibility practically guarantee it will happen." The task of 'policing' something as vast as a wiki seems almost impossible to normal, traditional media, who are new to this kind of technology. The promoters of Wikinews, however, rely on those who contribute to the project to fix such abuse on the website. Because of the site's instant archival of changes in the content, someone who finds vandalism on the site can "revert" the page to an earlier version, and the action is subsequently recorded with an explanation as to the revert. Those who participate on the site in the "spirit of open dialogue" and a desire to accurately report news are given the ability to police the vandals and even report the article on which the abuse has occurred. There are other ways that the administration of Wikinews can both police and prevent vandalism activities on their sites, besides relying on the efforts of those contributing to the site in a proper manner. The site's ability to log the IP address of everyone, even those who edit articles anonymously, gives the administrators of the website the ability to block the addresses from the site, thus preventing future vandal attacks. Does the general idea of Wikinews and the site itself actually work in reference to a better public debate and reporting of current events, though? In the opinion of Steven Fruitsmaak, Wikinews is a website which encourages the everyday citizen to question and criticize the biases of the large media corporations by going over their articles and finding the actual facts, bringing back the watchdog aspect to regular journalism. The opinions of normal citizens may once again affect how large media businesses do their own reporting. My opinion on the usefulness of Wikinews is that it is indeed a viable and useful way for citizens who desire to make the art of reporting better for everyone. Wikinews offers a community where free and neutral reportage is encouraged, where opinions and "spin" in articles are discouraged so that people may see the facts of an event and draw their own conclusions, instead of accepting the biases of the medium and investors reporting the news. There are no "editors-in-chief" who decide to run or not run stories based on their popularity; the newsworthiness of an article is decided by the response it generates in the talk functions and by how much it is added to in the actual text of the article. The site makes those who contribute to it more aware of their surroundings in a journalistic sense, and the world receives more eyes through which to see the happenings of day-to-day life, and the newsworthy stories which occur every day.

Works Cited Palser, Barb. "Coping with Jerk Swarms." American Journalism Review. Apr/May 28.2 (2006): 70-71. http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,uid,url&db=afh&AN=20411312&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live

Dorroh, Jennifer. "Wiki: Don't Lose That Number." American Journalism Review. Aug/Sept 27.4 (2005): 50-51. http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,uid,url&db=afh&AN=17831021&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live

Fruitsmaak, Steven. "Participatory Journalism Questions." Online posting. 29 Apr. 2007. Wikinews Water Cooler. 30 Apr. 2007 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Assistance

Wikimedia Foundation. Wikinews. 2007 30 Apr. 2007 http://www.wikinews.org