In light of Stephen Watsonis piece today on Wikipedia and at the suggestion of one of our commenters, I thought it appropriate to surface this dialogue that started in an unrelated post. Warning, it gets pretty geeky, but hey, Iim a geek. What can I say?
Whatis a wiki? Itis a web site that consists of the collective work of several authors. A wiki is similar to a blog in structure and logic, except it allows anyone to edit, delete or modify its content, including the work of previous authors. A blog, which is essentially what you are reading right now, does not allow visitors to change posts, only engage in online conversation begun by those posts.
In my comment below, I talk about why BROis public-facing platform is not and most likely never will be a wiki.
Anonymous:
the way i interpreted bman’s comments is at the heart of the problem with this site and– in my estimation–the general trend of turning to participatory blogs like it, for news.
let me change that.
the disagreement between fundamental values that we see on sites like this isn’t necessarily a problem, but certainly a consequence of the re-organization of communication media that the internet has brought on. in the past it has been hidden by people in power at a newspaper or television station, but now it is out in the open on the comments page of a popular blog. unedited for all to see.
the problem is that the traditional structure of writer and reader and all the power and authority that is associated with that structure is still here. so regular people who may or may not have published writing credits and experience in journalism become the authorities who write what news we as viewers read. the comments are the equivalent of the opinion page in the paper–on steroids. anyone with a web browser can toss their opinion in there (like i’m doing right now) and do it instantly. with or without reflection. the people who write the main articles are granted an authority as reporters of news regarding the city and the commentors are the ones granting that authority as the audience. one of the ways to possibly eliminate this structure is to create a wiki format where original articles can be modified and edited by everyone thus we all have the authority instead of the limited few who post the main articles.
(ps-why is an email required, i want to post anonymously)
Figmo
Anonymous,
Thank you for your points. Iim assuming you have a fundamental issue with ithe traditional structure of writer and reader and all the power and authority that is associated with that structurei. And thatis cool.
We however donit have a problem with itoand not just because our business model is predicated on that structure. We donit have a problem with it because weire advocates of authorial intent, the integrity of the text, and (though we transparently play around with aliases) identity. I know itis all structural and pre-Derrida and uninformed by Foucault, but weire kinda old fashioned that way. 😉
Weire an online publication that facilitates a dialogue. Thatis our proposition. We are not just a conversation. Weire a brand and authorial intent and editorial voice are key components of itocomponents made stronger by a transparency into our process/agenda and an eagerness to not just defend our points of view, but to use them as launch pads for conversations everyone is invited to and which we only edit for topicality and bad behavior.
In the end, people like to read what WestCoastPerspective and Queenseyes and Steel and Joan Fedeszyn and Ethan Cox and Harvey Garrett and Katie Schneider and Larry Bartolomei and Mark Goldman and any of the other 53 contributors to BRO have to say. I canit imagine diluting those voices with homologous peer review via a wiki. However, because of comments like these, those folks are held publicly accountable for everything they say.
Wikis are cool. I think they are the next generation discussion board and enterprise wide collaboration tool. But in addition to their being a tool thatis at odds with any publisher building and maintaining a brand, wikis arenit quite ready for primetime. To our minds, RSS is the technology that will simplify participation, break down walls between websites, replace email and provide new frameworks for social collaboration. RSS is at the very foundation of blogs, but its implementation on wikis uniformly, well, sucks. It will get and is getting better. But to build the types of community building and content delivery tools we have in store, wikiis are inadequate.
Lastly, the beautiful thing about the blogging phenomenon is that anyone, ANYONE, can start one. If you donit think BRO is relevant or represents your agenda, first give us a chance. Tell us what you want covered and if we canit or donit accommodate, start a blog. Theyire free.
greentessier
Anonymous,
I think you make some interesting points, and media is changing, though human nature is not. We are still the same erring, self-interested humans we’ve always been, albeit with awesome technology at our disposal. Currently, however, there isn’t a real communal or accepted sense of “That which is right,” and at some various points in our country idealism reigned, and in doing so gave people something to follow, which they did more or less well. Those principals are still there, but have fractured, like much of our society and culture, and after it all shakes out a bit, it will take a lot of brainpower to put it back together in some format. I do believe it will, however because humans are constantly moving from chaos to order.
As for this blog, there will always be a certain amount of chumminess inherent in any blog UNLESS otherwise stated, or funded. Most of the folks here volunteer their time, as do posters – obviously – and we don’t spend time on things we don’t agree with. So is the mistake *yours* for expecting otherwise? Or is it this or any other blog’s obligation to be other than themselves? Other than pro-their-own-opinions? It all begins with the type of media and what they set out to do.
Americans have an expectation of our newspapers to be unbiased, because we are idealists, but often they are anyway – because humans have biases. If it’s not in the way a story is written, it’s in what gets covered and from what angle and where in the paper the story is put. In England you know what the usual bent is of certain media outlets, and you read them for their conservative or liberal take on a topic.
So now that you get a sense of what the writers and posters at Buffalo Rising are interested in, read it with that filter, as you should process any media outlet.
As for censorship, I think it’s perfectly possible to say anything you want to politely. It takes a little skill. I’ve seen some very negative posts that don’t go away.
This could make an interesting other thread…
BuffaloFan
Wrong day to be a wiki evangelist:
Jack Thompson is threatening to sue Wikipedia for spreading “false, defamatory and actionable” statements about him. Jack Thompson’s article on Wikipedia has been deleted, and is now locked by the Wikimedia Foundation Office, the only article on Wikipedia to be in this status. Additional details can be found on his article’s talk page.
greentessier
Yup… that’s my problem with wikipedia. Anyone can write anything, but there’s no way to make sure things are correct.