Category: Journalism

Implementing ‘institutional review’ on collaborative editing?

Can the Germans fix Wikipedia?

The wikipedia vandalism problem has pushed the model nearer to the point of restricting access to expert authors in a given area–a point that would make it like a regular encyclopedia.

From what I can tell, the system allows anyone (or perhaps logged in users) to edit a page, but then a “trusted” or “experienced” user reviews the changes and makes them live.

This change makes perfect sense.

Technically, it sounds a lot like Slashdot’s moderation system or Google’s PageRank (TM) system. Outside of the technological realm, it sounds quite a bit like how review works in publication or even the newsroom. Institutions (whether commercial or nonprofit) have a number of inherent factors which ensure content quality. Review processes, history, reputation, legal liability, and internal debate are all things which restrict institutional speech from being completely uninhibited. By mirroring this, in it’s own way, Wikipedia stands to potentially become more reputable while still capitalizing on the benefits of worldwide collaborative editing.

Google’s Library

In case you don’t have the time to read Battalle’s The Search, a pretty good substitute might be an article in today’s Washington Post (Search Me?). The article discusses a number of issues around Google’s book project which got me thinking: could a bit of creative lawyering and calling Google a “library” be a possible escape for the project’s leagal liability. The point is made that:

To index the Web, Google first sends out software programs called “crawlers” that explore the online universe, link by link, making copies of every site they find — just as Book Search makes a digital copy of every book it can lay its hands on. Web sites are protected by copyright, so if you don’t want your site indexed by Google and its search brethren, you can “opt out,” usually by employing a nifty technological watchdog (a file called robots.txt) that tells search engines to bug off.
Ditto for books, Google argues: Publishers and authors can opt out by informing Google that they don’t want their books scanned and made searchable.

It looks as though the “transformative use” argument is being made, but I wonder if this could be extended to the notion that, much like a traditional library, all Google is doing is collecting material and making it available for a limited public use (a few pages, as opposed to a limited-time loan). I’m not saying that this argument is necessarily persuasive, or even right, but rather creating an analogy between a data warehouse and a physical book warehouse. As it is, copyrights basis in “the copy” pretty much makes the argument untenable (but this basis is up for debate).

…in other stories grabbing my attention today

Michael Geist is picking up on the emerging Blackboard v D2L patent fight. Not exactly sure what to make of this yet, as a large part of my job involves working with D2L software (I’ll note, for one of its earliest and largest clients). For more, keep an eye on Michael Feldstein’s blog.

Finally, the Times has an article about Paparazzi 2.0, where anyone with a cell camera stands to profit from selling quick pics to tabloids. Now celebrity privacy can be added to the list of areas of media law individuals may need to “be more aware of” in the world of anybody-can-publish (something Ashley Simpson knows well). It appears in at least these cases, there are still organizational checks within news and tabloid firms to keep the issue from falling totally on a photographer.

Finally finally, here’s a good note on “Astroturfing 2.0” from Ars. If my old pro-market comment-ers on net neutrality were in fact involved in this, they might like to know that their efforts were appreciated in that they really forced me to further examine and clarify my own views. If they were legitimately commenting–thanks for the same reason!

Blogging ethics

I attended a session last night about the comparative ethics of blogging and mainstream journalism. The session centered around a recent article about a L.A. Times columnist who was caught pseudonymously making politically charged comments on a blog.

The talk centered around the question of whether or not this action was ok. Many of the bloggers on the panel (and students in the room) appeared to believe that there was no ethical conflict for the columnist, since he was doing this on his own time and made an extra effort to distance himself from his employer.

What I took away from the session (admittedly confirming some of my previous beliefs) was the increasing importance of the editor in our new mass communication landscape. Institutional mass communicators like newspapers and television stations have processes, people, and the persona of the institution in place as ethical guards. Many bloggers, on the other hand, have only themselves to answer to. In this way, it seems to me that while blogging may technically be mass communication, this lack of additional blocks makes their actions more like that of an individual speaker (note that even the panelists who reviewed submissions/blogrolls did little of this editing, with a few exceptions).

Should this mean that bloggers should be held to a lower ethical standard? If so, should this be extended to legal standards? Is it then the readers’ responsibility to make these distinctions? How can mass communicators and bloggers possibly manage these expectations?

Protecting Drafts

Two articles appeared in the Times today which call into question the balance of power between government enforcement and journalists’ privilege.

First, the “F.B.I. Is Seeking to Search Papers of Dead Reporter.” The family of a Washington reporter who recently passed away is fighting attempts to dig through papers to search for classified material. Of particular concern is the apparent fishing expedition that the F.B.I. wishes to go on:

“They talked about the Aipac case and that they thought Dad had some classified documents and they wanted to take fingerprints from them” to identify possible sources, he [the reporter’s son] recalled. “But they said they wanted to look at all 200 boxes and if they found anything classified they’d be duty-bound to take them.”

Also in the news are the subpoenas of reporters for their notes in the ongoing Plame leak scandal.

Traditionally, a reporter’s notes or other materials used in the newsgathering process (different courts in different locales have set different standards of protection). The argument is that these materials are necessary in forming effective speech. One might say that not protecting this material could lead to even less depth in reporting, and more superficial coverage like that of 24 hour cable news, blogs, and even this post (more feeling, less fact). When the authorities wish to simply troll through materials looking for broken laws, we must really worry about chilling journalist speech.