E-Media Tidbits

Wikipedia Can wikis and more traditional coverage peacefully coexist on a news site?

That post generated a fair number of comments, and even more behind-the-scenes e-mails. Unfortunately, that coincided with an especially busy time for me, so I haven't had a chance to do the kind of thoughtful follow-up this topic deserves. My apologies.

Today, Tidbits reader Terry Steichen posted a thought-provoking comment on this topic. I figure, responding to his ideas is as good a place as any to start following up on this thread. Before you read any further here, please take a minute to read Terry's comment. I'll wait.

...OK, cool. Let's continue.

Let me preface this with a basic point about wikis I think many people don't understand: Wikis don't have to be a free-for-all. Depending on the wiki tool you choose and how you configure it, it is possible to set various gradations of reading and editing permissions, and to institute appropriate protocols and backtracking capabilities.

RELATED RESOURCES

Get E-Media Tidbits as an RSS feed: * Copy this link and add it to your feed reader Subscribe to receive E-Media Tidbits by e-mail: * Sent Monday-Friday, 5 p.m. ET

That said... Terry's comment explored how wikis might augment three typical news products: the news report, the opinion article, and the background article. In a nutshell, he concludes that having readers contribute to backgrounders holds the most promise for news org wikis.

Terry immediately writes off the wiki as a tool to add value to the news article, but I wouldn't be so quick to do that. I know that one of the main reasons I and many other Wikipedia users consult that source is to catch updates on fast-breaking updates to existing topics.

For instance, the Society of Environmental Journalists' Tipsheet recently published an article I wrote on covering plug-in hybrid cars. At the bottom of that article, I recommended: "As with most fast-moving current topics, the Wikipedia page 'Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle' tends to keep pace with new developments. While Wikipedia information requires verification, it is a good source of leads and does provide links to supporting references. To follow ongoing edits to this page, subscribe to this RSS feed."

OK, so that's one potential option for a news org wiki. But this is just part of a potentially much larger view.

It seems to me that the story-by-story presentation necessitated by print and broadcast media may have been cutting us off from exploring other more nuanced, contiguous ways to present news and information -- while also actively engaging and involving communities in that coverage.

For instance, a news organization could use wikis to create a series of collaborative backgrounders and resource guides. Collectively, these pages could also serve as a kind of index to news offered both by the news org (stories) and the community (experiences, perspective, facts, questions, etc.).

Think about it: For decades, major papers like the New York Times have published an annual index that researches find invaluable. While search engine interfaces have outmoded the print index to a certain extent, there is something to be said for a good index. That's something indexer Kevin Broccoli explained in a 1998 article he wrote for my blog, Contentious.

To boil it down, the added value of an index is context. Broccoli wrote: "Indexers are trained to analyze concepts. ...The goal of an index is to direct readers to pertinent information on each topic listed, rather than passing mentions. This requires the indexer to make many judgment calls -- that is, to consider context as well as content. Indexers also categorize concepts. This structure helps readers 'narrow' their search. A well-written index assumes that the reader may not know specific terms used in the text. ...A well-written index also lists topics that are implied, rather than stated directly in the text."

So what, and what does this have to do with wikis? Well, every community -- and sub-group within a community -- has its own context. Wikis are very, very good at highlighting context. Just look at any Wikipedia entry on a contentious topic to see that in action: each viewpoint gets its own discussion.

All too often, context and continuity get lost in a story-by-story presentation. We lose a sense of the overarching narrative when seized by the hook of the moment. The reporter may see the story or issue as an ongoing whole, but the reader, viewer, or listener probably has a far more fragmentary experience.

This, I suspect, is where wikis could step in. They could play a valuable role not just in supplying engagement and context, but in helping communities and news pros collaborate to create a less fragmented view of what's happening, what came before, what might come next, and how it all matters and interrelates.

Thoughts? Please comment below.