The wisdom of the crowds, part II
I've been talking with Lisa Williams of H2otown, a citizen journalism site that is incredible enough to recommend you visit it yourself. She was asking me about our experience with comments and citizen journalism contributions.
We haven't been all that successful with the contributions, but the conversations on blogs, letters and stories have been compelling and dynamic. I told her that commenters and citizen journalists occasionally are one and the same, but more often are different animals. Commenters are more inclined to discuss and challenge. Their response tends to be a shot from the hip. Citizen journalists have a specific story to tell and take more thought and time -- it's harder to write original work than to respond to someone else's work. For some reason, while it seems as if everyone thinks they can write poetry, many are hesitant to write journalism. And then there is the issue of pay.
She responded:
I discovered something recently that really changed my thinking about what our thresholds for success are in community building: many popular sites that feature user-submitted content from a nationwide or even global audience -- like Wikipedia and Digg -- have tiny numbers of core contributors that are really running the show.
This means that the whole storyline of "thousands of faceless internet users swarming to a site and making it a thriving magnet for traffic" is completely wrong. In reality, there's a core group of people -- about the same number as in an urban high school -- who are consistent contributors, and their efforts keep the site fresh and make the contributions of casual "once in a great while" contributors possible.
If true, this has huge implications for local sites planning for
user-submitted content. One, it means that even if you get a small
number of contributors, you may be doing better, on a percentage basis, than some famous "people driven" sites. My guess is that in a local context, the staff of the paper IS that core group of committed
contributors.
That certainly jibes with my experience at H2otown. I generally post three items a day, and that seems to be enough to keep the machine going. And many more people want to kibitz in the comments section than want to post stories. But I think Watertown's population just isn't big enough to contain enough people who want to do the "post a story" thing for the site to run on its own. I'm beginning to suspect that that's true of almost all but the largest cities. I also think visitors are basically using the comments section as a low-tech social networking service -- "read stories" and "submit stories" is not as compelling as "talk to peers." (Which can be loud and abrasive at times). I think newspapers can use their content and talent to draw people -- and then work on becoming (again) the central place where conversation happens in their community.
Update: Rich Skrenta imparts tough love to participatory media sites.
Our experience bears her out. Visit the letters to the editor blog and you'll find some commentary on the letters of the day and a good deal of social conversation by the frequent visitors who know each other virtually.
To the best of my knowledge, few commenters have submitted their original work -- whether it's an essay, reporting, community news or even a letter to the editor -- for publication.
I don't know what it says about the future of citizen journalism. Nothing, would be my guess. People have always found it simpler and more convenient to talk to each other about the news than to go out and write/record the news. Others will always want to do their own reporting and writing. The Triad already has some bloggers who are doing independent reporting. Our long-range goal is to be a place where both can happen.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Interesting. I'm on my way to a Microsoft meeting (a launch really, one of few in GSO), and will be with a fair number of geeks today. They know how to use Digg and what it's for (to name one). Do most people?
Also, as for citizens' sending in stories: When Jay Rosen was here, he was specific that an editor or coordinator was needed to add journalistic style, rules, ethics, whatever to citizen-generated stories and to organize specifics for those stories.
I think Jay has it right but so far, most online news orgs haven't done that. Yup, it involves money (and Jay got a grant), but "free" doesn't really work anymore nor does writing without mission.
ConvergeSouth is an anomaly in that regard as we don't pay speakers (except for hotel/airfare when we can). And as the conference grows, we'll have (and are) more inquiries about presenting. But there's no denying that time, effort, and yes, money have helped build its reputation. An aside: we gave out t-shirts last year and asked participants to go online, right then and there, and make a small contribution for the shirt. Very few did. We thought wrong. (BTW, tax-deductible donations are still accepted here.)
Citizen journalism can't be an excuse to get free stuff from people. It's got to balance, somehow. I think that hasn't yet been achieved.
Posted on February 13, 2007 7:17 AM
John, we're having a similar experience here in Dallas. Almost all of our user-contributed "stories" come from folks who have agreed to let us pick up a subset of their existing blog. The universe of people who wants to write original material for someone else for free is very small.
BUT:
In the past couple weeks, we've run five stories that were big enough to be stole-- I mean, picked up by The Daily Papers and The TV Stations. Every single one came from staffers chasing tips posted in our comments on other stories.
Posted on February 13, 2007 7:21 AM
I'm sorry to say that it appears as if the citizens journalism efforts of the N&R never advanced beyond fluffy rhetoric. I've submitted four story ideas: water quality at the head waters of Greensboro's drinking supply, City inspectors entering occupied apartments without permission, an examination of the survellience practices of local police and an investigation of possible racial discrimination by local night clubs. One was met with "we're working on that" (although a story never materlialized, that I coudl see), the others with disinterest. Does the N&R even have anybody coordinating citisen journalism efforts anymore? I undertand the former advocate, Lex Alexander, has been re-assigned.
I'll give the N&R points for bringing a few good bloggers into its commentary fold, but that seems to be about the extent of anything approaching citizen journalism. Has the N&R published a single story that it would consider a citizens journalism project?
Posted on February 13, 2007 8:25 AM
It's partly about money, yes. And the expectation for payment ups the ante, both in terms of our expectations about quality and return. But a lot of people just want to get their stories out to a wider audience, which we can facilitate.
Roch, we publish a number of citizen-generated stories and columns. I think you're referring to citizen-professional journalist partnerships. We've been timid in that arena for a variety of reasons, including availability of our staffing and uncertainty over how it would work successfully. As a result, we moved partnering with citizens down our priority list.
Posted on February 13, 2007 9:18 AM
You know, I resisted commenting on John's post yeaterday - because it was so paternalistic and insulting to anyone who cares enough to comment regularly, but I had to "chime in" and agree (horrors!) with Roch on the "fluffy rhetoric".
I'm hammering on (every day) what one would think would be a "citizen journalism" story on my blog . . . spoonfeeding a story that happened in John's backyard . . . a story that he has used every excuse under the sun to avoid. I'm "angry", a "one-note", "omniscient", and "loud-mouthed" because I KNOW I'm right, and I won't let the paper off the hook for not helping me get it to a wider local audience.
I'm getting more readers and more commentary and (especially) more e-mails asking, "What the hell is going on? Why won't anyone in this mess do the right thing?"
The news in this state is full of ethical dilemmas and perjury trials and bad DA's, yet for some unknown reason, my case is not deemed "relevant" by JR & company.
I wonder how many more stories could be told if just a small amount of print space currently devoted to "hate" crimes that weren't really and "reconcilliation" was given to other things?
Perhaps the priority fell because some citizens are just more important than others?
Posted on February 13, 2007 2:52 PM
What Lisa Williams points out is true of the bulletin boards (mostly game-related) I lurk at. It takes a lot of time (and no job, or irregular employment, or not caring a whole lot about work or school) to post 40, 50, 100 things per day.
The more you post, the more people know you (or at least your name). Recognition leads to respect or rebuke, sometimes both, depending on what you put up there. And who doesn't want to be famous, even if it's just on a bulletin board or Web site where no one actually knows your real name or what you look like?
Posted on February 13, 2007 8:43 PM