open journalism

"Anyone can help with Wikinews. If you see a headline linking to an empty story, you can create it. If a story needs to be moved to a new title as events develop, please move it. If you know of a headline story from other sources but don't have time to write a story, don't hesitate to add that headline without a story.

Everything here is under construction, so please give us some time to sort out the policies and procedures before relying on Wikinews as a source."

The same company that killed encyclopedia sales is on the forefront of making the consumer the reporter with Wikinews. I love their line - Everything here is under construction, so please give us some time to sort out the policies and procedures before relying on Wikinews as a source...great idea. But, what seperates this from a message board, or a rumor mill? Is it high end articles about ecological consequences, or world affairs that will make wikinews different from so many other online sources?

I think the difference may be "FREE". The fact that ANYONE can use them as a source could be the difference that eventually kills Reuters or the Associated Press. The fact that AP and Reuters charge for their content helps keep their reporting consistent. But possibly biased...they are in the business of making money, and when your paycheck is on the line - you report what you need to report.

Wikinews, is in the business of reporting the news, not making money.  The problem they run into is that - AP and Reuters are trusted - even if felt to be slightly biased - but trusted that if they say a camel pile-up happened on Route 66 in Nowhere, OK then you can pretty well trust that it happened.

Over time, and as policies become trusted and Wikinews gathers a following, the reporters themselves keep the news source reliable. The Consumer Creator - changing the way we now get our news.

I can almost hear the kicking and screaming from the conventional news services now.

Reinforcement to the article courtesy Wired.

Comments

[cancer]

I did not mean to malign my grandmother in any special way, just to say that she represents for me a person who would not know what I was talking about if I began to discuss media bias. Sure, she's no idiot, and she draws from a wealth of experience which makes her a little more patient than most, but I was (more than anything) responding to Wafl's comment that we all KNOW the media is biased, and trying to give an example of a person I know who doesn't. No special attack on the elderly intended--my granny's a wonderful person.

[AmyWafl]

Wisely spoken, Granny G.

[Granny G]

Well Cancer, maybe you don't give your grandmama enough credit for what she has learned from her years of life experiences--been there, done that. Perhaps she has simply found the lesser of media evils to "hope" to get truthful reporting. I am encouraged that you were listening to Fox--not perfect, but better than most (in my judgment). Everyone and everything has a slant of sorts as the result of their socialization, education, etc., etc.,and the best we can do is take our own life experiences, those of people we admire and search for the most factual data we can--perhaps we are bogging down in the definition of truth and fact. As we all know, everyone who witnesses the same train wreck, has a different interpretation of what occurred. So it is with us, we filter our experiences through our own lens--which is the accummulation of our years on this planet. We are here for the journey, the ride, and it is up to each of us to determine what is truth as we glean it from every source at our disposal. The opportunity is enormous for either error and waste, or making a contribution to society as a whole--I choose to savor every morsel or tidbit of global information I can--and then be sustained by what I choose to digest. We all wake up each day with an agenda, a bias and hope to have converts. We cannot look at ourselves as victims of the media, certainly as consumers--but from the comments here, I'd say none are sheep, or koolaid drinkers.

[cancer]

I was in the car listening to talk radio ('cause I'm a dork and would rather hear people prattle than sing much of the time) and I heard Fox's slogan, "We report, you decide." I love it. The problem? Simply by deciding what to report, these organizations are exercising bias and decision. Wafl, I think more and more people are aware of media bias, but you couldn't convince my grandma that there's bias. You and I might KNOW there's bias, but I think someone could get rich off the stupidity of the American public (of which I am not a part I guess...). Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here ends my diatribe.

[AmyWafl]

We already all KNOW that they have an agenda, and obviously that hasn't changed anything ... I highly doubt that they think we haven't caught on. I'm afraid I have to agree with Cancer -- even if we're getting "news" for free, doesn't mean that someone won't have an agenda or a slant. Even "free" public schools teach history from textbooks written from a certain point of view. It's a malady of humankind that I fear will stick around for a while.

P.S. I just wanted to clarify for anybody who hasn't been there -- but there aren't really any camels in Oklahoma ...

[a.brain]

Great confession C - and Bless you (even if you didn't sneeze) Dieter, can we get less opinion? Truly? Or would it just be better if we knew that they had an agenda...and didn't try and lie about it?

Either way, quite a hot topic this one...I think Brokaw is walking away at the right time...before the standard media news show takes a huge nosedive in ratings and respect..."Eyewitness to history"? - that's what they are saying about him. Grand statement isn't it?

And if he is the eyewitness to History...does that make blogging - "the rough draft of history?"

[orangeguru]

Indymedia has been doing this for years - and it's a bit biased for my taste.

Bloggers have proved that they are better at providing analyses and research on news - but suck at providing news.

The problem with news at the moment is, that journalists have lost some of their fire and too much filtered the wrong way.

We need less opinions and comments, more facts and complete coverage - instead of fast, flashy and repetetive broadcasting.

[cancer]

Power to the people! Errr...people with computers and spare time, you know, the kind of people who think flash-mobbing is cool. I'm all for alternatives to the drivel we get mainstream, but color me less than optimistic about this little venture. Maybe one day I'll eat a big fat "I told you so", but until then, I'm too disillusioned with the big-money, big-power wielded by the few to think that something like this will yield the kind of change needed to make a dent in the power structure. Sometimes I wish I had more faith that something like this could make a difference. Ever feel like you wish you could be more passionate about things but find yourself slowly drifting back to homeostasis after a good shakeup? Well, that's my confession for today, Father.

Oh Mr. Brain--I couldn't agree more--for too long we have been spoon fed a whole lot of "noise" and "hay" through the so-called mainstream news and other sources of distorted dissemination of information--including the educational system. "They" are getting it loud and clear and are not too sure what to do about it--most cable news media have created their own blogs or other means of instant feed back from the public. I do believe there needs to be a commonalty for the exchange of fact--a vehicle of truth and this may be it--actually, I'm beginning to see hope for a dialogue amongst the truth seekers who do not like the taste of pabulum and refuse to swallow it any longer.

Give me the facts, man, just the facts--I don't need "their" editorializing and slant to the left, or right.

[cigar]

As for being "Wired" and their demographics......

Newspapers will always be in demand, have a place and serve a need--at the bottom of the birdcage and for training puppies.

[a.brain]

Ahhh...Gigi - a commenter after my own heart. I think you might be on to something with the Stern/Sirius-AM/FM analogy...ever hear of Podcasting?? Article coming soon...but in case you want to investigate it yourself...

On the issue of reliability...I think it is way overdue that we media consumers start telling the mainstream as we know it that we have found other sources...and are willing to look further if necessary to receive the truth.

[gigi]

Very, very interesting!! This could most definitely be a "can of worms" OR a most reliable source of information. It will all depend on truth and whether or not they are interested in "reporting/relaying" the news OR "creating" the news--real or imagined. We have just witnessed the abuse of our media and the subsequent downfall of legitimate and dependable sources of information. Right now we are all suspect of anything we see or read.

No, I don't think there will even be a "stutter" from the big boys, desparation perhaps, as they are well aware of the growing dissatisfaction and distrust of the stories being put forth and that we consumers are now "shopping" for our info. I'm a big follower of Drudge for current events etc., and Little Green Footballs (among others) for a wide commentary on current events. If Wikinews wants to put its mark on accuracy in reporting--then they will be the "cream" and rise to the top. I assume they are depending somewhat on their readers and the public to keep them honest and fair??

There is always a void to be filled "out there"--take Howard Stern and his move to Sirius/satellite,they will leave the rest of the am/fm stations in the dust if they don't get busy and figure out a better "louse" trap, so to speak. Don't get me wrong--I'm not a Stern fan--that's another issue for another day, but it sure did wake me up to what is afoot "out there".

Hopefully they will allow themselves the time to experience growing pains, slowly, and to sort out the fact from fiction as they are bombarded with overly zealous, overly enthusiastic wanna-be's. I see it as either pure entertainment or legitimate relaying of current events, or something in between.

P.S. I like this one! I can't relate to some of your entries--however, I felt quite smug when my computer techie was here and I knew about the Fragdolls (had even seen the real ones on Fox News)and he didn't--does now--and he is a real gamer with international team players.