The wrong attitude
November 2nd 2007 02:27
:
People who will be left behind
Below is the article on Web 2.0 as it appeared in The Journalist, the National Union of Journalists' magazine:
WEB 2.0 IS RUBBISH
Webfolk call the burgeoning interactive use of the internet ÂWeb 2.0Â, in the manner of software manufacturers numbering their products. ItÂs full of possibilities  and of dangers for journalism, as DONNACHA DE LONG reports
IN THE AGE of technological integration in the media, the term Web 2.0 has increasingly become common currency. Even where the term is not used, the fundamental concepts of user participation and feedback have infused many of the ideas that have gone hand-in-hand with the major changes in work practices that have excited, worried and infuriated working journalists in varying measures.
So what's wrong with it? Isn't increased participation and feedback from our "users" -- readers and viewers -- a good thing? Of course it is, but the problem with Web 2.0 is not how it introduces these elements to the media, but how it's seen as replacing traditional media.
Professional media provide users with something that we need to fight to retain  truly authoritative content.{{Authority? Like the authority of News Corp, et al?}} The professional journalist brings training, experience and access to a variety of sources that may be inaccessible to the average person. They have the ability to produce content that informs and fulfil an essential part of democracy  the widespread dissemination of information that allows the public to question those in charge.{{Why can't they continue to do so under web 2.0? What's with this attitude from 'professionals' that they either continue providing what they provide in outdated forms of idea propogation or they cease altogether? Their compaint seems to be "Web 2.0 sucks because it doesn't have us." If they are so awesome then surely people would read their stuff if they were providing it on web 2.0}}
The media are not perfect. More often than not, they focus on issues the public is interested in rather than those that are truly in the public interest. But those who argue that Web 2.0 is the future want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Internet has always contained the potential to change the media. The ability to challenge authority, to provide an alternative narrative and to present a variety of points of view is what the Internet provides. But the idea that, instead of posting comments below a journalistic article, we get rid of the article altogether and just have the comments is truly dangerous.{{People like this, with an inflated ego just don't seem to get that all there ever was, was comments. A journalistic article is just a comment. It should be one which has lots of research and knowledge behind it, but it's still just someone's opinion.}}
There are those who claim that Web 2.0 democratises the media. It would make everyone equal, yes, but should they be? ItÂs like saying anyone can play for Manchester United.{{Exactly! How much better would the team be if absolutely everyone was able to be on the team. Then the manager could send the absolute best team on the field, not having missed out any diamonds in the rough which would not have been on the team for circumstantial reasons}} In one of the main examples given to explain Web 2.0, Wikipedia replaces Britannica Online{{Yes! Of course Wikipedia should replace Britannica online! Britannica online is in 1 language, it has 120 000 articles, has around 4 000 contributors and you have to pay to access it. Wikipedia has 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, with 6.8 million registered contributors and it's free. What's more, they are equally as reliable with Britannica having an average of 3 errors per page and wikipedia with 4 (if you have access to scholarly journals, check out Rosenzweig, Roy (2006). "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History 93: 117Â146.). Anyone who claims that wikipedia is less reliable has not chacked their facts and themselves are less reliable a source than wikipedia. Ok, so wikipedia is hundreds of times bigger and just as reliable, so why shouldn't it take over?}} Is that the kind of democracy we want  where anyone can determine the information that the public can access, regardless of their level of knowledge, expertise or agenda?
Donnacha Delong is a member of the NUJ Multi-Media Commission. He represents new media journalists on the union's National Executive Council
WEB 2.0 IS RUBBISH
Webfolk call the burgeoning interactive use of the internet ÂWeb 2.0Â, in the manner of software manufacturers numbering their products. ItÂs full of possibilities  and of dangers for journalism, as DONNACHA DE LONG reports
IN THE AGE of technological integration in the media, the term Web 2.0 has increasingly become common currency. Even where the term is not used, the fundamental concepts of user participation and feedback have infused many of the ideas that have gone hand-in-hand with the major changes in work practices that have excited, worried and infuriated working journalists in varying measures.
So what's wrong with it? Isn't increased participation and feedback from our "users" -- readers and viewers -- a good thing? Of course it is, but the problem with Web 2.0 is not how it introduces these elements to the media, but how it's seen as replacing traditional media.
Professional media provide users with something that we need to fight to retain  truly authoritative content.{{Authority? Like the authority of News Corp, et al?}} The professional journalist brings training, experience and access to a variety of sources that may be inaccessible to the average person. They have the ability to produce content that informs and fulfil an essential part of democracy  the widespread dissemination of information that allows the public to question those in charge.{{Why can't they continue to do so under web 2.0? What's with this attitude from 'professionals' that they either continue providing what they provide in outdated forms of idea propogation or they cease altogether? Their compaint seems to be "Web 2.0 sucks because it doesn't have us." If they are so awesome then surely people would read their stuff if they were providing it on web 2.0}}
The media are not perfect. More often than not, they focus on issues the public is interested in rather than those that are truly in the public interest. But those who argue that Web 2.0 is the future want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Internet has always contained the potential to change the media. The ability to challenge authority, to provide an alternative narrative and to present a variety of points of view is what the Internet provides. But the idea that, instead of posting comments below a journalistic article, we get rid of the article altogether and just have the comments is truly dangerous.{{People like this, with an inflated ego just don't seem to get that all there ever was, was comments. A journalistic article is just a comment. It should be one which has lots of research and knowledge behind it, but it's still just someone's opinion.}}
There are those who claim that Web 2.0 democratises the media. It would make everyone equal, yes, but should they be? ItÂs like saying anyone can play for Manchester United.{{Exactly! How much better would the team be if absolutely everyone was able to be on the team. Then the manager could send the absolute best team on the field, not having missed out any diamonds in the rough which would not have been on the team for circumstantial reasons}} In one of the main examples given to explain Web 2.0, Wikipedia replaces Britannica Online{{Yes! Of course Wikipedia should replace Britannica online! Britannica online is in 1 language, it has 120 000 articles, has around 4 000 contributors and you have to pay to access it. Wikipedia has 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, with 6.8 million registered contributors and it's free. What's more, they are equally as reliable with Britannica having an average of 3 errors per page and wikipedia with 4 (if you have access to scholarly journals, check out Rosenzweig, Roy (2006). "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History 93: 117Â146.). Anyone who claims that wikipedia is less reliable has not chacked their facts and themselves are less reliable a source than wikipedia. Ok, so wikipedia is hundreds of times bigger and just as reliable, so why shouldn't it take over?}} Is that the kind of democracy we want  where anyone can determine the information that the public can access, regardless of their level of knowledge, expertise or agenda?
Donnacha Delong is a member of the NUJ Multi-Media Commission. He represents new media journalists on the union's National Executive Council
| 69 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
