Talk:Journalism studies and Wikinews

Wikipedia and the Death of the Expert
This article looked like it was going to lend intellectual weight to the idea that crowd sourced knowledge disembodies expertise, but instead it gave another sales pitch for Wikipedia. Still, I list it here as a resource to stimulate thought and discussion. I would like us to more honestly represent the concerns of the nay sayers, understand them and present their truth as the real yet timid challenge it is. Some of the comments give pointers to a deeper perspective.

A Community-Based Model for the Production of Ideas
This MA thesis presents a community-based model for the creation of intellectual and creative works. Such works play an important role in our society and economy. They are often understood as products of exclusive ownership (granted through mechanisms such as copyright). I show that a community-based model has proven to be at least as effective in a number of areas, and explain how it resolves a number of economic inconsistencies and problems inherent in the proprietary model. Moreover, I argue that the creative community is not only a method of production: it is also a way of living that can strengthen communities and assist in the self-development of individuals

Preservation of tradition
The Musalman: The Last Handwritten Newspaper in the World as a way in to considering traditions and our relationship to them. What, for example, does Musalman and Wikinews have in common?

Some problems experienced
It looks as if the project is on its last legs. Unlike the 2011 instance, the 2013 one has created some strong feelings against the Wikinews platform as a viable space for journalism student learning. The work of a few new reviewers in Wikinews have created significant amount of discontent in this year's cohort of students, causing the academic who is leading the project to feel that Wikinews reviewers can become too inconsistent, creating unnecessary stresses for the students. I have looked into it to date, and while most of the comments from the reviewers were to the letter of Wikinews policy and guidelines, there appeared to be a number of instances of varying standards were inadvertently being applied to different types of news stories. So far this semester, not a single student in the cohort has succeeded in getting a story through. This particular point is unsurprising, as the standards set by Wikinews policy and guidelines are very high. However, a supportive and helpful communicative framework seems lacking. Most of the problem I think relates to the design of Wikinews review. Like all the Wikimedia projects, the openness combined with hierarchies of control leaves the review process at risk of being dominated by a small group of like minded people. That group may lack the diversity in perspective or experience to check each other's work, and to be more supportive to new comers. This problem is well known across all the Wikimedia projects. In other projects like-minded groups can hold of administrator privileges, and use those to alienate, sideline and even bully other contributors or certain types of contribution. This type of behavior can be both explicit and implicit, intentional or non-intentional. It is thus so difficult to hold to account. The review process in Wikinews may well be feeding such developments, and starting a feeling of bad will in its simple implementation (red cross graphics, short sharp messages, guidelines made difficult through hypertext, little prompts to reviewers to get involved and help see a new editor across the line) and the preference of reviewers to not get involved in the development of the news story they are reviewing, may well be leaving many new comers feeling unsupported and blocked. The unfortunate result in this instance is that the UoW project will draw to a close citing difficulties with reviewers and their communications, and the findings of this paper will be updated to reflect the new experiences and outcomes. Leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 05:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)