| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

FrontPage

This version was saved 16 years, 8 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by PBworks
on July 9, 2007 at 12:42:03 pm
 

Wiki-Journalism: are wikis the new blogs?

 

Abstract

 

[TO BE WRITTEN]

 

Introduction

 

[TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REWRITTEN]

 

The past few years have seen the news industry begin its first tentative experiments with the wiki format. The most well-known examples have taken place in the USA: in the LA Times ‘wikitorial’ in June 2005, the paper looked to open up its editorial piece on the Iraq war to readers, so that they could edit, rewrite, and add to the original. A year later, Wired magazine pre-published an article about wiki technology online, as a wiki, so that readers could edit it before it was published.

 

The two examples demonstrated the potential of wiki technology both to reach out to a readership – and to fall flat on its face. The ‘wikitorial’ was, in editorial terms, a failure, with the newspaper pulling the feature after only a day due to readers flooding the site with inappropriate material. In contrast, the Wired experiment was heralded as a success with users suggesting links and contacts, and one actually interviewing a Harvard expert.

 

So can the news industry look forward to a wiki utopia where readers check facts, spelling and grammar - and do interviews to boot? Or will the wiki dream be killed off through the fear of cyber vandals treating news websites as virgin walls for virtual graffiti? This paper seeks to explore the possibilities of ‘wiki journalism’, looking at the brief history of the technology and the form, and current opinions about wikis in the news industry as a medium for journalism.

 

 

Wikis: a brief history

 

Wikipedia defines a wiki as “a web application designed to allow multiple authors to add, remove, and edit content. The multiple author capability of wikis makes them effective tools for mass collaborative authoring.” The technology was first employed in 1995 on WikiWikiWeb, and within a few years was being used by businesses as collaborative software, examples including, according to Wikipedia, “project communication, intranets, and documentation, initially for technical users.”

 

From 2001 onwards Wikipedia played a significant part in popularising the technology, and there are currently hundreds of wikis covering topics ranging from geology and physics to food and travel. The growth of wikis is also facilitated by a range of free wiki hosting services, known as wiki farms, as well as open source wiki software.

 

In addition to the current, published version of a wiki page which anyone can edit (usually through WYSIWYG controls that resemble those of a word processor), wikis can include a number of other important features, including:

  • a system whereby authors are notified of changes to pages and can revert to older versions if necessary
  • permissions, whereby users may have different levels of editorial control. Some wikis also include password protection, so only users who know the password can edit a page.
  • records of previous versions of the page, so users can see how the subject has changed over time
  • discussion pages, where authors can discuss the subject and reach consensus on page contents 
  • the ability to include an "edit summary" when a page is edited - a short piece of text explaining what has been done and why

 

 

 

Wiki journalism in action

 

Wikinews was launched in 2004 as an attempt to build an entire news operation on wiki technology. The experiment has not had the same success as Wikipedia, Eva Dominguez (2006) argues, “because, in most cases, the authors do not write about events or facts they have gathered at first hand, but which they have learned through the media.”

 

[MORE WIKINEWS LITERATURE REVIEW]

 

Where Wikinews – and indeed Wikipedia - has been most successful, however, is in covering large news events involving large numbers of people, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Virginia Tech Shootings, where first hand experience, or the availability of first hand accounts, forms a larger part of the entry, and where the wealth of reportage makes a central ‘clearing house’ valuable.

 

Thelwall & Stuart (2007) identify Wikinews and Wikipedia as becoming particularly important during crises such as Hurricane Katrina, which “precipitate discussions or mentions of new technology in blogspace.”

 

Mike Yamamoto (2005) notes that “In times of emergency, wikis are quickly being recognized as important gathering spots not only for news accounts but also for the exchange of resources, safety bulletins, missing-person reports and other vital information, as well as a meeting place for virtual support groups.” He sees the need for community as the driving force behind this.

 

In June 2005, six months after the launch of Wikinews, the LA Times decided to experiment with a ‘wikitorial’ on the Iraq war, publishing their own editorial online but inviting readers to “rewrite” it using wiki technology.

 

The experiment received broad coverage in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Ross Mayfield (2005) of SocialText, a company that creates wikis, was sceptical before the experiment began:

 

“Offering up otherwise finished text for rewrite has limited effect. Generally, wikis can work best when something is slightly unfinished, when room for contribution is left clear. Finished text leads people to drop in links or short comments. Quite different from wikitechture that involves people in the process of production and encourages development of shared practices. Also, this is a marked departure from the reference model most public wiki users know, the neutral point of view of Wikipedia. Almost begs for edit wars. But starting with the least newsy section of the news could be a good place to start.”  

 

Mayfield’s predictions were more than realised, as Glaister (2005) described:

 

“By early morning, readers were inserting a tone that was more shrill than the high-minded balance of the original: "The Bush administration should be publicly charged and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

 

“At 9am, the editorial was erased by a reader and substituted with another. Bizarrely, the new version echoed the position of the original.

 

“By mid-morning, the editorial had been replaced by the more reductive "Fuck USA".

 

“By lunchtime, the founder of Wikipedia got in on the act, "forking" the editorial into two pieces, representing opposing viewpoints.

 

“"I'm proposing this page as an alternative to what is otherwise inevitable, which is extensive editing of the original to make it neutral ... which would be fine for Wikipedia, but would not be an editorial," wrote Jimbo Wales, who advised the paper on its experiment.

 

“At 4am the paper's managing editor got a call from the office. Explicit images known as "goatses" had appeared on the wikitorial page. The experiment was terminated. ”

 

In September 2005 Esquire magazine used Wikipedia itself to ‘wiki’ an article about Wikipedia by AJ Jacobs. The draft called on users to help Jacobs improve the article, with the intention of printing a ‘before’ and ‘after’ version of the piece in the printed magazine. He included some intentional mistakes to make the experiment “a little more interesting”

 

The article received 224 edits in the first 24 hours, rising to 373 by 48 hours, and over 500 before the article was ‘frozen’ in order to be printed. Jacobs later wrote (2005a) “I was riveted to my computer, pressing refresh every 45 seconds to see the next iteration … I feel like I should submit all my articles to the community to get them Wikipedia-ized. I can't wait to print this in Esquire magazine.”

 

Wired’s experiment in 2006 also involved an article about wikis. When writer Ryan Singel submitted the 1,000 word draft to his editor, “instead of paring the story down to a readable 800 words, we posted it as-is to a SocialText-hosted wiki on August 29, and announced it was open to editing by anyone willing to register.” (Singel, 2006a).

 

When the experiment closed,

 

“there were 348 edits of the main story, 21 suggested headlines and 39 edits of the discussion pages. Thirty hyperlinks were added to the 20 in the original story.

 

“One user didn't like the quotes I used from Ward Cunningham, the father of wiki software, so I instead posted a large portion of my notes from my interview on the site, so the community could choose a better one.” (Singel, 2006a)

 

Singel felt that the final story was “more accurate and more representative of how wikis are used” but, significantly, not a better story than would have otherwise been produced:

 

“The edits over the week lack some of the narrative flow that a Wired News piece usually contains. The transitions seem a bit choppy, there are too many mentions of companies, and too much dry explication of how wikis work.

 

“It feels more like a primer than a story to me.”

 

However, continued Singel, that didn't make the experiment a failure, and he felt the story “clearly tapped into a community that wants to make news stories better ... Hopefully, we'll continue to experiment to find ways to involve that community more.”

 

[MORE EXAMPLES NEEDED]

 

 

Literature review

 

Andrew Lih places wikis within the larger category of participatory journalism, which also includes blogs, citizen journalism models such as OhMyNews and peer to peer publishing models such as Slashdot, and which, he argues “uniquely addresses an historic ‘knowledge gap’ – the general lack of content sources for the period between when the news is published and the history books are written.” (2004b, p4)

 

Participatory journalism, he argues, has “has recast online journalism not as simply reporting or publishing, but as a lifecycle, where software is crafted, users are empowered, journalistic content is created and the process repeats improves upon itself.” (2004b p26)

 

Francisco (2006) identifies wikis as a ‘next step’ in participatory journalism: “Blogs helped individuals publish and express themselves. Social networks allowed those disparate bloggers to be found and connected. Wikis are the platforms to help those who found one another be able to collaborate and build together.”

Lih notes the importance at Wikipedia of the neutral point of view (NPOV) as the central editorial principle. “Some of the decisions are strikingly similar to those of other professional news organisations. For example, the Wikipedia community’s tendency to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorist’ is similar to the policy adopted by the Reuters news agency.” (2004b, p11)

 

Jason Walsh (2007) breaks community-oriented websites into three “broad groups: communities of interest, communities for a purpose and social networks.” With regard to Wikipedia, Walsh says “the most important aspect … is that people come together to do something constructive, something they consider to be important.”

 

David Gerard of Wikipedia argues: “With social online communities the point of the community is the community – to meet people and get a social group. With Wikipedia it’s different. Wikipedia is the first group to have a long-term purpose. We had a simple idea, a hook – let’s write an encyclopedia.” (Walsh, 2007)

 

[MORE LITERATURE NEEDED]

 

 

Advantages

 

Wikis allow news operations to effectively cover issues on which there is a range of opinion so broad that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to summarise effectively in one article alone. Examples might include local transport problems, experiences of a large event such as a music festival or protest march, guides to local restaurants or shops, or advice. The WikiTravel site is one such example, “A worldwide travel guide written entirely by contributors who either live in the place they’re covering or have spent enough time there to post relevant information.” (Gillmor, 2004, p150)

 

Organisations willing to open up wikis to their audience completely may also find a way of identifying their communities’ concerns: Wikipedia, for instance, notes Eva Dominguez (2006) “reflects which knowledge is most shared, given that both the content and the proposals for entries are made by the users themselves.”

 

Internally, wikis also allow news operations to coordinate and manage a complex story which involves a number of reporters: journalists are able to collaborate by editing a single webpage that all have access to. News organisations interested in transparency might also publish the wiki ‘live’ as it develops, so readers can view as it develops, and look at previous versions, while the discussion space which accompanies each entry also has the potential to create a productive dialogue with users.

 

There are also clear economic and competitive advantages to allowing users to create articles. With the growth of low-cost micro-publishing facilitated by the internet and blogging software in particular, and the convergence-fuelled entry into the online news market by both broadcasters and publishers, news organisations face increased competition from all sides. At the same time, print and broadcast advertising revenue is falling while competition for online advertising revenue is fierce and concentrated on a few major players: in the USA, for instance, according to Jeffrey Rayport (2007) 99% of gross advertising money 2006 went to the top 10 websites.

 

Wikis offer a way for news websites to increase their reach, while also increasing the time that users spend on their website, a key factor in attracting advertisers. And, according to Dan Gillmor, “When [a wiki] works right, it engenders a community – and a community that has the right tools can take care of itself” (2004, p149).A useful side-effect of community for a news organisation is reader loyalty.

 

Andrew Lih notes the importance of the “spirit of the open source movement” (2004b p6) in its development, and the way that wikis function primarily as “social software – acting to foster communication and collaboration with other users.” (p10):

 

“By emphasising social interaction over technological solutions, the project harnesses the creative energies of the participants, rather than forcing them to work in any strict or prescribed process … His human orientation promotes personal engagement and investment in the community, building stronger bonds and imbuing a sense of belonging. By not being constricted by process or content management structure, users are empowered by the software system and not victims of it. Users become stakeholders in the content and in the outcome of their articles.” (2004b p15-16)

 

Specifically, Lih attributes the success of the wiki model to four basic features: user friendly formatting; structure by convention, not enforced by software; “soft” security and ubiquitous access; and wikis transparency and edit history feature.

 

Economically, wikis offer the attractions of free “user generated” content, and, in the case of published articles, free subediting. But these attractions are misleading: the disadvantages of the form mean costs elsewhere, in maintenance and monitoring.

 

 

Disadvantages

 

Shane Richmond (2007a) identifies two obstacles that could slow down the adoption of wikis: inaccuracy and vandalism:

 

“vandalism remains the biggest obstacle I can see to mainstream media's adoption of wikis, particularly in the UK, where one libellous remark could lead to the publisher of the wiki being sued, rather than the author of the libel.

 

“Meanwhile, the question of authority is the biggest obstacle to acceptance by a mainstream audience.”

 

Writing in 2004 Lih (2004b) also identified authority as an issue for Wikipedia: “While Wikipedia has recorded impressive accomplishments in three years, its articles have a mixed degree of quality because they are, by design, always in flux, and always editable. That reason alone makes people wary of its content.

 

Security is a common problem in wiki technology. Wikipedia’s own entry on wikis notes: “Wikis by their very nature are susceptible to intentional disruption, known as "trolling". Wikis tend to take a soft security approach to the problem of vandalism; making damage easy to undo rather than attempting to prevent damage.”

 

Dan Gillmor puts it another way: “When vandals learn than someone will repair their damage within minutes, and therefore prevent the damage from being visible to the world, the bad guys tend to give up and move along to more vulnerable places.” (2004, p149)

 

Attempts to address the security issue vary. Wikipedia’s own entry on wikis again explains:

 

“For instance, some wikis allow unregistered users known as "IP addresses" to edit content, whilst others limit this function to just registered users. What most wikis do is allow IP editing, but privilege registered users with some extra functions to lend them a hand in editing; on most wikis, becoming a registered user is very simple and can be done in seconds, but detains the user from using the new editing functions until either some time passes, as in the English Wikipedia, where registered users must wait for three days after creating an account in order to gain access to the new tool, or until several constructive edits have been made in order to prove the user´s trustworthiness and usefulness on the system, as in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where users require at least 15 constructive edits before authorization to use the added tools. Basically, "closed up" wikis are more secure and reliable but grow slowly, whilst more open wikis grow at a steady rate but result in being an easy target for vandalism.”

 

Walsh (2007) quotes online media consultant Nico Macdonald on the importance of asking people to identify themselves:

 

“The key is the user’s identity within the space – a picture of a person next to their post, their full name, a short bio and a link to their space online.”

 

“A real community has, as New Labour would say, rights and responsibilities. You have to be accountable for yourself. Online, you only have the ‘right’ to express yourself. Online communities are not communities in a real sense – they’re slightly delinquent. They allow or encourage delinquency.”

 

Walsh (2007) argues that “Even if you don’t plan on moderating a community, it’s a good idea to have an editorial presence, to pop in and respond to users’ questions and complaints. Apart from giving users the sense that they matter – and they really should – it also means that if you do have to take drastic measures and curtail (or even remove) a discussion or thread, it won’t seem quite so much like the egregious action of some deus ex machina.”

 

Ryan Singel of Wired also feels there is a need for an editorial presence, but for narrative reasons: “in storytelling, there's still a place for a mediator who knows when to subsume a detail for the sake of the story, and is accustomed to balancing the competing claims and interests of companies and people represented in a story.” (2006a).

 

‘Edit wars’ are another problem in wikis, where contributors continually overwrite each other’s contributions due to a difference of opinion. The worst cases, notes Lih (2004b), “may require intervention by other community members to help mediate and arbitrate”.

 

Eva Dominguez (2006) recognises the potential of wikis, but also the legal responsibilities that publishers must answer to: “The greater potential of the Internet to carry out better journalism stems from this collaboration, in which the users share and correct data, sources and facts that the journalist may not have easy access to or knowledge of. But the media, which have the ultimate responsibility for what is published, must always be able to verify everything. For example, in the case of third-party quotes included by collaborating users, the journalist must also check that they are true.”

 

One of the biggest disadvantages may be readers’ lack of awareness of what a wiki even is: only 2% of Internet users even know what a wiki is, according to a Harris Interactive poll (Francisco, 2006).

 

[CULTURAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS TO TAKE-UP?]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions

 

A review of examples of, and discussion about, wiki journalism, reveals key dimensions that must be identified when examining the use of wikis in journalism:

 

  • Whether the topic is defined by an editor, or a user
  • Whether the first draft is produced by a journalist paid to do so, or by a user
  • Whether the material could have been produced without using wiki technology
  • Whether the timescale is finite (‘frozen’ for print publication), or infinite (ongoing) 
  • Whether the wiki draft is edited further for ‘final’ publication

 

Based on variations in the above, we can identify five broad types of wiki journalism:

 

  • ‘Second draft’ wikis: a ‘second stage’ piece of journalism, during which readers can edit an article produced in-house
  • Cost-cutting wikis: a replacement for material that would have otherwise been produced in-house, but whose subject matter is still decided in-house
  • Crowdsourcing wiki: a means of covering a story which could not have been produced in-house (probably for logistical reasons), but which becomes possible through wiki technology
  • Supplementary wiki: a supplement to a piece of original journalism, an ‘add-on’: “A tab to a story that says: Create a wiki for related stories” (Francisco, 2006)
  • Open wiki: an open space, whose subject matter is decided by the user, and where material may be produced that would not otherwise have been commissioned

 

So far most experiments with the form (the ‘Wikitorial’; Wired’s wiki article; the Esquire Wikipedia article) have been of the ‘Second draft’ variety, relinquishing the least amount of control over content. They have also sought to ‘freeze’ the wiki at some point for publication, often only days after first being published online, something which could be seen as ‘unnatural’ for a wiki. Equally, freezing wikis underexploits the ability to look at various ‘edits’ of an article or, more precisely, subject, as it develops over a long period of time.

 

In contrast, Wikinews and Wikipedia have adopted an ‘Open’ model, relinquishing almost all control.

 

Wikis are blogs 2.0: like blogs, they provide an arena for readers to critique and correct, to self-publish, and to form communities.

 

But they are different in a key way: wikis are ‘articles by committee’. The range of voices editing each other tends to result in a conservative, fact-based piece of work that represents the ‘Neutral Point Of View’ (NPOV) formalised by Wikipedia.

 

This is partly why the ‘wikitorial’ experiment failed: the technology was not able to produce the opinionated, individual voice required of an editorial. The Wired experiment, on the other hand, called for specialist knowledge on a particular area, and while its author still felt it needed an editorial hand to give it a ‘voice’ too, it was successful in gathering that specialist knowledge.

 

Ross Mayfield (2007) also identifies a number of technical reasons why the Wired experiment succeeded:

 

  • “Monitoring tools like Recent Changes and History were made available to let the community moderate.
  • “Requiring registration to edit made contributors more accountable.
  • “It could be argued that a WYSIWYG editor enabled domain experts to contribute, but in this case the domain was wikis, so it probably wasn't a factor.  Nevertheless usability always matters.
  • “Besides the article, we use a weblog for submission of headline ideas and an included page for the deck
  • “Choosing an article, instead of an editorial, provided an implicit guideline for what was acceptable. 
  • “Most importantly -- a clear goal for the collaboration was set.”

 

American columnist Bambi Francisco (2006) argues that it is only a matter of time before more professional publishers and producers begin to experiment with using “wiki-styled ways of creating content” in the same way as they have picked up on blogs.

 

The Telegraph’s Web News Editor, Shane Richmond, wrote: “Unusually, it may be business people who bring wikis into the mainstream. That will prepare the ground for media experiments with wikis [and] I think it's a safe bet that a British media company will try a wiki before the end of the year.” (2007b)

 

Richmond added that The Telegraph were planning an internal wiki as a precursor to public experiments with the technology. “Once we have a feel for the technology, we will look into a public wiki, perhaps towards the end of the year.” (Bradshaw, 2007)

 

Like blogs, wikis will only flourish if as much time and care is invested in them as are invested in editing articles. Weaknesses identified, such as vandalism and inaccuracy can be addressed if web-literate editorial staff are assigned to monitor and facilitate the wiki - to prevent legal issues, to attract A-List contributors and build genuine online communities.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Anonymous. Wiki experiments. Journalism.org, October 1 2005, http://www.journalism.org/node/1676 accessed July 2 2007

Anonymous. Hurricane Katrina. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina accessed July 2 2007

Anonymous. Wiki. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki accessed July 2 2007

Bradshaw, Paul. Are wikis the new blogs? Press Gazette, February 9, 2007

Bruns, Axel (2005) Gatewatching, Peter Lang

Cannon-Brookes, Mike. When wikis don't work - mass journalism. Rebelutionary, September 6 2006, http://blogs.atlassian.com/rebelutionary/archives/000736.html accessed July 2 2007

Dominguez, Eva. Wiki journalism. La Vanguardia.es, September 14, 2006, http://www.lavanguardia.es/lv24h/20060914/51283227918.html accessed July 3 2007

Dorroh, Jennifer. Wiki: Don’t Lose That Number. American Journalism Review, August/September 2005. http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3947 accessed July 2 2007

Francisco, Bambi. Why media will embrace wikis. MarketWatch, December 28, 2006. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-media-embrace-wikis/story.aspx?guid=%7B65DE7FE7-0E72-4BF0-B7CC-2DF7755DD69C%7D accessed July 2 2007

Giles, Jim. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, March 28 2006 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/pf/438900a_pf.html accessed July 2 2007

Gillmor, Dan (2004) We The Media, O’Reilly Media

Glaister, Dan. LA Times 'wikitorial' gives editors red faces. The Guardian, June 22, 2005, accessed July 2 2007

Jacobs, AJ et al. Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia. Wikipedia, September 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Improve_this_article_about_Wikipedia&printable=yes accessed July 2 2007

Jacobs, AJ et al. Wikiworld. Esquire, December 1 2005, http://www.esquire.com/features/best-n-brightest-2005/ESQ1205SOCWIKIPEDIA_226 accessed July 2 2007

Levine, Robert. New Web Sites Seeking Profit in Wiki Model. New York Times, September 4, 2006. http://derekpages.googlepages.com/NewWebSitesSeekingProfitinWikiModel-.pdf accessed July 2 2007

Lih, Andrew. Participatory Journalism and Asia: From Web Logs to Wikipedia. Paper for the 13th Asian Media Information & Communications Centre Annual Conference:

ICT & Media Inputs & Development Outcomes Impact of New & Old Media on Development in Asia July 1-3, 2004. http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/amic-2004-wikipedia-rc2-wtitle.pdf accessed July 2 2007

Lih, Andrew. The Foundations of Participatory Journalism and the Wikipedia Project. Conference paper for the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications Communication Technology and Policy Division

Toronto, Canada August 7, 2004. http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/aejmc-2004-final-forpub-3.pdf accessed July 2 2007

Lih, Andrew. Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Paper for the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism (April 16-17, 2004) University of Texas at Austin. http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf accessed July 2 2007

Makice, Kevin. More on the Wired Article. BlogSchmog, September 6th, 2006, http://www.blogschmog.net/?p=477 accessed January 17 2007

Mayfield, Ross. Wikitorials. Corante, June 13 2005, http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/06/13/wikitorials.php accessed January 17 2007

Mayfield, Ross. What makes wikis work. Telegraph Blogs, September 12 2007, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/sept06/wikiswork.htm accessed January 17 2007

Orlowski, Andrew. Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study. The Register, March 23 2006, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/print.html accessed July 2 2007

Rayport, Jeffrey. Advertising's death is greatly exaggerated. MarketWatch, Jun 8, 2007, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/advertisings-death-greatly-exaggerated/story.aspx?guid=%7B17A4688C%2D867B%2D42D6%2DA82D%2DD87712FDA6D6%7D&dist%20= accessed July 2 2007

Richmond, Shane. Change is inevitable. Telegraph Blogs, January 16 2007, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/january07/changeisinevitable.htm accessed January 17 2007

Richmond, Shane. Wild Wild West. Telegraph Blogs, January 17 2007, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/january07/wikiwikiwild.htm accessed January 17 2007

Singel, Ryan. The Wiki That Edited Me. Wired, September 7 2006, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71737 accessed January 17 2007

Singel, Ryan. Veni, Vidi, Wiki. Wired, September 7 2006, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71733 accessed January 17 2007

Singel, Ryan, et al. Veni. Vidi. Wiki. http://www.eu.socialtext.net/wired/index.cgi?wired_wiki accessed January 17 2007

Terdiman, Daniel. Esquire wikis article on Wikipedia. CNET News.com, September 29, 2005, http://news.com.com/Esquire+wikis+article+on+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-5885171.html accessed July 2 2007

Thelwall, Mike and Stuart, David. RUOK? Blogging Communication Technologies During Crises. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007, p523-548

Walsh, Jason. Build the perfect web community. .net Magazine, p39-43, no.165, August 2007

Yamamoto, Mike. Katrina and the rise of wiki journalism. CNet News Blog, September 1, 2005, http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5845892-7.html accessed January 17 2007

Wiki-Journalism: are wikis the new blogs?

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.