5 ms·

I also ran a now-semi-defunct crowdsource journalism startup (Grasswire). What Wales will find (and I’ve talked with him about this) is that unlike Wikipedia t

I also ran a now-semi-defunct crowdsource journalism startup (Grasswire). What Wales will find (and I’ve talked with him about this) is that unlike Wikipedia the news world isn’t suffering for lack of content. Specifically, every single thing you could find on the WikiTribune page you could find in another place, probably written just as well, and still available for free. WikiTribune needs to develop an edge. “We’re accurate” isn’t an edge, because most people consider news accurate and authoritative. “We’re fair” doesn’t matter, because the people that think news is inherently biased have a (probably biased) news source that they consider unbiased. They don’t appear to be taking a “We’re focused on only important stuff” or any of the other ways they could differentiate. The power of crowdsourcing can/should be to produce types of news that for-profit news doesn’t do as well. Deep, investigative stuff that’s hard and expensive to do if you’re paying people for it. But that’s hard, and not many people click on it. Once you’ve done all that hard work, someone at NBC will take your research and write an article about it, tapping their enormous audience, and link back to you as a source (hey thanks!) Most people will never click. There’s very little incentive to perform the type of journalism that’s actually needed, and even if you create it you don’t necessarily benefit from it.

danso 9y ago
> WikiTribune needs to develop an edge. “We’re accurate” isn’t an edge This. I subscribe to the New York Times. Not because I believe they cover everything the best (I go to sports blogs and r/cfb for college football), and not even because they cover the things I'm very interested in pretty well. I subscribe, because on an average day, what they've chosen to cover and to cover well, generally appeals to me. This includes all the many, many things I am not aware of or give a high priority to on an average day, until I see it on the front page of the NYT. This isn't at all an argument that the NYT is better than every other outlet there. First of all, there are places that beat out the NYT on some days -- and conversely, days when the NYT has done something abysmal. But the cost of finding that optimal outlet (an argument for why personal optimization in this area has highly diminishing returns could be its own topic) -- which would be in addition to the cost of time that I spend consuming news and commentary -- isn't worth if relative to the NYT's success rate. Note I'm never restricted to the NYT on any day, of course. I'm arguing for why I'm fine with having the habitual inclination (and the recurring credit card payment) to make the NYT my primary choice on an average day.
jasode 9y ago
>Deep, investigative stuff that’s hard and expensive to do if you’re paying people for it. That answer is really the fundamental issue. OP Mizza had 2 paragraphs about "process" and "tools" because he believes the barrier to investigative journalism is the lack of a collaboration/communications hub. He wrote: >When it comes to massively collaborative investigation, the key thing is _process_, not product. [...] I think in terms of what is needed of tools to be developed [...] cobbled together using Google Docs, Facebook and Slack It's misleading to think that a technical software solution such as having programmers develop a slack+github+crypto-email hub will unleash investigative journalism. The real key issue is the funding, not the web communication platforms. Another commenter nodded in agreement with Mizza and said we need more "PBS Frontline". Well, that show is funded[1] by viewer donations and grants from billionaires' philanthropic foundations. (e.g. John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation oversees a ~$6 billion endowment.) Can WikiTribune can attract billionaires to write checks and pay for investigative journalism? We don't know yet. Maybe the only realistic path is for WikiTribune to start modestly with their supporters paying $15/month[2] for "fact-checked" and "evidence-based" journalism and when they build enough of a reputation, billionaires will open their wallets to pay for expensive months-long investigative work. If applying for grants from philanthropic foundations (like PBS Frontline has done) is the wrong funding model for investigative journalism, I'd rather we discuss alternative ways to pay journalists instead of software tools. Yes, new collaborative software tools can help smooth over some editing workflows -- but that's not the real problem. [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/about-us/our-funders/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/about-us/our-funders/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitribune#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitribune#Business_model
austincheney 9y ago
I can even put that into perspective. The first time I deployed to CENTCOM (2004) there were more than 3500 US journalists already there (and there are many foreign journalists there too). The first time I went to Afghanistan (2009) I met one of the major CNN politics correspondents and his producer on a flight. You could honestly make the argument that with so much coverage putting your life on the line for a story that somebody else probably already has may not be worth it. In that context war and combat were the big sellers and got the most coverage, because you just had to be in the right spot at the right time. There is little or not investigation. The best news coming out of there had nothing to do with combat action, but rather things that demanded real investigation. The hard work of journalism. These stories were extremely rare, in comparison. The other major issue is allowing an audience to dictate your subject matter, which is my interpretation of crowdsourcing. I would say this is the quickest way to defeat your primary mission of objectivity and shortest path to bias. The big challenge here is how to determine what qualifies as a story worth publishing, particularly for an international audience. One way to limit bias is to disallow opinion pieces and editorials. Fox News is, on occasion, a great source of journalism, but journalism doesn't drive its ratings. Editorial pundits do, and a clear bias is the result.
- zbentley 9y ago
  > The other major issue is allowing an audience to dictate your subject matter... Isn't that inevitable when your main revenue source is in-article advertising?
- smt88 9y ago
  Out of sincere curiosity, what have been their journalistic achievements? Also, their bias is not out of a need to make money. It's not incidental. It's an open, well-funded attempt to push the country to the right, and it worked.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    They do really good stats. CNN frequently uses Fox stats. > Also, their bias is not out of a need to make money. It's not incidental. It's an open, well-funded attempt to push the country to the right, and it worked. I completely disagree. The pundits make money from advertising sales. The greater their following the more they can charge for ad time slots. Fox claims to be the highest rated and most watched televised news. It isn't about setting a political mandate. It is all about making money. Moderates were pushed to the right after Obama's time in office just as they were pushed to the left after Bush's second term. Now, it seems, many voters are being pushed to the left since Trump has entered office. There isn't a conspiracy here. EDIT: Rupert Murdock was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
rdiddly 9y ago
If it's not an eyeball-and-ad-based, for-profit business, then who cares if people click or not? They just need to click the donate button now and then. In fact the central genius of it, and Wikipedia, is that it's basically outside the commercial realm, and therefore at least theoretically free of most of the distortions the profit motive creates in journalism. Hence they don't really need an "edge" either, but if they did, they do have one: "We're a non-profit." And/or, "You wrote it." (The public, that is.) It's basically a copy of Wikipedia where instead of "no primary sources" they'll likely toggle it over to "all primary sources" (or mostly). Though actually I wonder why they didn't just keep it as part of Wikipedia itself, but maybe that's the reason right there.
gist 9y ago
> Deep, investigative stuff that’s hard and expensive to do if you’re paying people for it. And it's even harder if you are not a well known entity that can open doors. 60 Minutes, NYTimes, WSJ etc the usual suspects are a well oiled machine of access. Don't think for a second (I know this wasn't your point btw.) that a nobody even with money and talent can duplicate that advantage.
r00fus 9y ago
We’re accurate” isn’t an edge, because most people consider news accurate and authoritative. “We’re fair” doesn’t matter, because the people that think news is inherently 4biased have a (probably biased) news source that they consider unbiased. 4 I think/hope you might be mistaken here. People used to think UX wasn't a feature people would pay for, and Apple proved them wrong. The existing "Wikipedia = relatively unbiased, and accurate" brand might make a big difference if WikiTribune can deliver.
- irhd 9y ago
  An awful lot of people aren't at all interested in accurate. They want the biased news source that doesn't bother reporting things that will piss them off, and blows the things they like out of proportion. Any sources that don't do this are just fake news, biased, unreliable, etc... You have papers with excellent track records for accurate reporting getting blasted as fake news constantly.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > You have papers with excellent track records for accurate reporting getting blasted as fake news constantly. TBH same paper can have a track record of accurate reporting in some things, and be wildly biased, inaccurate and unreliable in other things. It is easy to find ones that are all-around bad, it's not hard to find ones that are good at something and bad at something, but finding ones that are universally good... that's challenging. I wonder which ones you think have excellent record, never reporting anything bad or inaccurate.
    - irhd 9y ago
      > inaccurate and unreliable in other things They aren't often though, because they stake their reputation on being accurate. Bias is harmful, but I think the WaPo and NYT are a much more acceptable level of bias then say, Fox.
      - smsm42 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

danso 9y ago

> WikiTribune needs to develop an edge. “We’re accurate” isn’t an edge This. I subscribe to the New York Times. Not because I believe they cover everything the best (I go to sports blogs and r/cfb for college football), and not even because they cover the things I'm very interested in pretty well. I subscribe, because on an average day, what they've chosen to cover and to cover well, generally appeals to me. This includes all the many, many things I am not aware of or give a high priority to on an average day, until I see it on the front page of the NYT. This isn't at all an argument that the NYT is better than every other outlet there. First of all, there are places that beat out the NYT on some days -- and conversely, days when the NYT has done something abysmal. But the cost of finding that optimal outlet (an argument for why personal optimization in this area has highly diminishing returns could be its own topic) -- which would be in addition to the cost of time that I spend consuming news and commentary -- isn't worth if relative to the NYT's success rate. Note I'm never restricted to the NYT on any day, of course. I'm arguing for why I'm fine with having the habitual inclination (and the recurring credit card payment) to make the NYT my primary choice on an average day.

jasode 9y ago

>Deep, investigative stuff that’s hard and expensive to do if you’re paying people for it. That answer is really the fundamental issue. OP Mizza had 2 paragraphs about "process" and "tools" because he believes the barrier to investigative journalism is the lack of a collaboration/communications hub. He wrote: >When it comes to massively collaborative investigation, the key thing is _process_, not product. [...] I think in terms of what is needed of tools to be developed [...] cobbled together using Google Docs, Facebook and Slack It's misleading to think that a technical software solution such as having programmers develop a slack+github+crypto-email hub will unleash investigative journalism. The real key issue is the funding, not the web communication platforms. Another commenter nodded in agreement with Mizza and said we need more "PBS Frontline". Well, that show is funded[1] by viewer donations and grants from billionaires' philanthropic foundations. (e.g. John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation oversees a ~$6 billion endowment.) Can WikiTribune can attract billionaires to write checks and pay for investigative journalism? We don't know yet. Maybe the only realistic path is for WikiTribune to start modestly with their supporters paying $15/month[2] for "fact-checked" and "evidence-based" journalism and when they build enough of a reputation, billionaires will open their wallets to pay for expensive months-long investigative work. If applying for grants from philanthropic foundations (like PBS Frontline has done) is the wrong funding model for investigative journalism, I'd rather we discuss alternative ways to pay journalists instead of software tools. Yes, new collaborative software tools can help smooth over some editing workflows -- but that's not the real problem. [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/about-us/our-funders/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/about-us/our-funders/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitribune#Business_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitribune#Business_model

austincheney 9y ago

I can even put that into perspective. The first time I deployed to CENTCOM (2004) there were more than 3500 US journalists already there (and there are many foreign journalists there too). The first time I went to Afghanistan (2009) I met one of the major CNN politics correspondents and his producer on a flight. You could honestly make the argument that with so much coverage putting your life on the line for a story that somebody else probably already has may not be worth it. In that context war and combat were the big sellers and got the most coverage, because you just had to be in the right spot at the right time. There is little or not investigation. The best news coming out of there had nothing to do with combat action, but rather things that demanded real investigation. The hard work of journalism. These stories were extremely rare, in comparison. The other major issue is allowing an audience to dictate your subject matter, which is my interpretation of crowdsourcing. I would say this is the quickest way to defeat your primary mission of objectivity and shortest path to bias. The big challenge here is how to determine what qualifies as a story worth publishing, particularly for an international audience. One way to limit bias is to disallow opinion pieces and editorials. Fox News is, on occasion, a great source of journalism, but journalism doesn't drive its ratings. Editorial pundits do, and a clear bias is the result.

zbentley 9y ago
> The other major issue is allowing an audience to dictate your subject matter... Isn't that inevitable when your main revenue source is in-article advertising?
smt88 9y ago
Out of sincere curiosity, what have been their journalistic achievements? Also, their bias is not out of a need to make money. It's not incidental. It's an open, well-funded attempt to push the country to the right, and it worked.
- austincheney 9y ago
  They do really good stats. CNN frequently uses Fox stats. > Also, their bias is not out of a need to make money. It's not incidental. It's an open, well-funded attempt to push the country to the right, and it worked. I completely disagree. The pundits make money from advertising sales. The greater their following the more they can charge for ad time slots. Fox claims to be the highest rated and most watched televised news. It isn't about setting a political mandate. It is all about making money. Moderates were pushed to the right after Obama's time in office just as they were pushed to the left after Bush's second term. Now, it seems, many voters are being pushed to the left since Trump has entered office. There isn't a conspiracy here. EDIT: Rupert Murdock was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

rdiddly 9y ago

If it's not an eyeball-and-ad-based, for-profit business, then who cares if people click or not? They just need to click the donate button now and then. In fact the central genius of it, and Wikipedia, is that it's basically outside the commercial realm, and therefore at least theoretically free of most of the distortions the profit motive creates in journalism. Hence they don't really need an "edge" either, but if they did, they do have one: "We're a non-profit." And/or, "You wrote it." (The public, that is.) It's basically a copy of Wikipedia where instead of "no primary sources" they'll likely toggle it over to "all primary sources" (or mostly). Though actually I wonder why they didn't just keep it as part of Wikipedia itself, but maybe that's the reason right there.

gist 9y ago

> Deep, investigative stuff that’s hard and expensive to do if you’re paying people for it. And it's even harder if you are not a well known entity that can open doors. 60 Minutes, NYTimes, WSJ etc the usual suspects are a well oiled machine of access. Don't think for a second (I know this wasn't your point btw.) that a nobody even with money and talent can duplicate that advantage.

r00fus 9y ago

We’re accurate” isn’t an edge, because most people consider news accurate and authoritative. “We’re fair” doesn’t matter, because the people that think news is inherently 4biased have a (probably biased) news source that they consider unbiased. 4 I think/hope you might be mistaken here. People used to think UX wasn't a feature people would pay for, and Apple proved them wrong. The existing "Wikipedia = relatively unbiased, and accurate" brand might make a big difference if WikiTribune can deliver.

irhd 9y ago
An awful lot of people aren't at all interested in accurate. They want the biased news source that doesn't bother reporting things that will piss them off, and blows the things they like out of proportion. Any sources that don't do this are just fake news, biased, unreliable, etc... You have papers with excellent track records for accurate reporting getting blasted as fake news constantly.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > You have papers with excellent track records for accurate reporting getting blasted as fake news constantly. TBH same paper can have a track record of accurate reporting in some things, and be wildly biased, inaccurate and unreliable in other things. It is easy to find ones that are all-around bad, it's not hard to find ones that are good at something and bad at something, but finding ones that are universally good... that's challenging. I wonder which ones you think have excellent record, never reporting anything bad or inaccurate.
  - irhd 9y ago
    > inaccurate and unreliable in other things They aren't often though, because they stake their reputation on being accurate. Bias is harmful, but I think the WaPo and NYT are a much more acceptable level of bias then say, Fox.
    - smsm42 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]