I'm not quite sure what to think about this. Everyone has used wikipedia for something and its value is inherent. But can you imagine a whole newspaper or magazing written like that?
I guess it's a sign of the times. People prefer reality shows on TV and YouTube videos to movies or plays done by professional actors so who wants a newspaper article written by an actual writer? Well, for one, I do.
I might choose to look at an article written en masse out of curiousity to see how it comes together, but I would rather read something crafted by a person who makes a living covering the news. It's one thing to visit forums or chats or whatever you might call them to a subject that is most interesting, but I don't think mass random collaboration should become the norm. Those who clamor that it brings diversity or a new forum for opinions need to understand the editors or team of editors have the ultimate power to spin things however they want. Honestly, I think they have more leeway for something of this regard. If a reporter writes a questionable column or story, they will have to answer to their editor, the public, etc. Whose to say an editor or anyone won't write posts under aliases and skew the whole presentation? Just as interviews often miscontrue quotations or "take things out of context" what makes anyone think an editor won't cut and paste the hardwork of others to get their own personal message across and further their own personal agenda? Overall, I think the biggest liability to these
crowd sourcing projects is that they are going to attract extremist points of view on any given topic because it will draw those willing to work for free to get their wacked-out messages across.
Further, if this is the future of intellectual exploration and research, it makes me wonder what the future of education is. On this track it seems like no one should have to write any sort of paper. Following the logic behind citizen journalism...why should I try to write anything when everyone else knows more and can do a better job?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First of all, great post. I think you bring up a really interesting debate about amateurs and media. And I have to ask, did you by any chance read Andrew Keen's Cult of the Amateur? I definitely didn't. But from what I've read from reviews of the book and interviews with him, he makes some of the same points that you are making.
Personally, I tend to agree with you on your criticism of crowd sourcing and Citizen Journalism. Although it seems like a great idea in theory, there are actually a lot of potential problems with these projects. I think you are right that whatever is ultimately produced (if anything) can be easily spun. I also agree that people with extremist views would be the most likely to contribute to these sort of projects. Still, I would be interested to see what comes out of this project.
Post a Comment