3 ms·

It seems that mass media, in reaction to the Internet and facing the increased competition, went with the approach where they increased the frequency and churn

by js8 5y ago

It seems that mass media, in reaction to the Internet and facing the increased competition, went with the approach where they increased the frequency and churn of the news articles and content, at the expense of quality. However, this is a very print-centric approach, where you print something and cannot change it afterwards, and maybe throw the old newspaper away that day. I wonder why they cannot adopt a different journalistic paradigm, similar to for example Wikipedia or Wikivoyage, where instead of publishing hundreds of articles about a topic, one a day, they would instead create a sort of curated portals which would be fine-tuned and updated over the longer time periods, focusing on quality of information. The same goes for most online discussions; they are extremely ephemeral and stupid points are argued over and over. It would be nice to summarize the main points in a particular discussion from time to time and then continue. So I think there is plenty of space to innovate like this.

Kye 5y ago
This was a big thing in the early days of the blogging boom. I forget who, but one major blogger made a point out of treating posts as living documents that changed as stories developed.
lanstin 5y ago
You might enjoy the old wiki, they tgought a lot about this balance between debate and conclusions https://wiki.c2.com/?AllPanaceasBecomePoison https://wiki.c2.com/?AllPanaceasBecomePoison
bjornklose 5y ago
Being ephemeral is both a bug and a feature, though. Take a random Discord server, where we try to figure out some details of a DAO in the making. People from other timezones have to hop in and out and are welcomed by a wall of text when they come back. So did the issue from yesterday get resolved already since you were gone? Maybe, but if so, how did that agreement come to fruition? And which part of the above wall of text do we "mark as resolved"? What part to keep, what to formalize as a rule, etc. Those who were "in the room" when the discussion happened now have to find a way to re-tell the story in another ritual (meeting, weekly summary, task, whatnot). Sounds like the work of an editor or journalist to me. But most people would rather add onto, instead of editing or removing only [1]. Like with maintaining legacy software or editing existing wikipedia entries, most prefer to instead just "add some more". But even more important, some people tend to disregard even scientifically proven advice and prefer living through things themselves, no matter how redundant the experience. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... (which i found via HN back then)

by js8 5y ago

Kye 5y ago

This was a big thing in the early days of the blogging boom. I forget who, but one major blogger made a point out of treating posts as living documents that changed as stories developed.

lanstin 5y ago

You might enjoy the old wiki, they tgought a lot about this balance between debate and conclusions https://wiki.c2.com/?AllPanaceasBecomePoison https://wiki.c2.com/?AllPanaceasBecomePoison

bjornklose 5y ago

Being ephemeral is both a bug and a feature, though. Take a random Discord server, where we try to figure out some details of a DAO in the making. People from other timezones have to hop in and out and are welcomed by a wall of text when they come back. So did the issue from yesterday get resolved already since you were gone? Maybe, but if so, how did that agreement come to fruition? And which part of the above wall of text do we "mark as resolved"? What part to keep, what to formalize as a rule, etc. Those who were "in the room" when the discussion happened now have to find a way to re-tell the story in another ritual (meeting, weekly summary, task, whatnot). Sounds like the work of an editor or journalist to me. But most people would rather add onto, instead of editing or removing only [1]. Like with maintaining legacy software or editing existing wikipedia entries, most prefer to instead just "add some more". But even more important, some people tend to disregard even scientifically proven advice and prefer living through things themselves, no matter how redundant the experience. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... (which i found via HN back then)