Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media News

Dan Gillmor Launches Grassroots Journalism 89

Posted by Hemos from the moving-forward-with-dan dept.
kbahey writes " Most Slashdotters know Dan Gillmor from his San Jose Mercury days, with lots of article on technology over the years, from the dot-com era down to now. As has been rumored before, Dan has left the SJ Mercury to found a 'grassroots journalism' project. Well, it is here, and called the Bayosphere. The site is powered by Drupal, an open source Content Management System. Jay Campbell, Dan's Technologist, writes about why they chose Drupal. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dan Gillmor Launches Grassroots Journalism More

Dan Gillmor Launches Grassroots Journalism

Comments Filter:

  • Osphere... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:19AM (#12542460) Homepage Journal
    When are the 'osphere's going to die?
    • just as soon as we get rid of this pesky planetary atmosphere.

    • Re:Osphere... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My grandfather was an O'Sphere, you ignorant clod!!!
    • When the trackback show that the buzz no longer has mindshare in the osphereosphere ... gimme a few more minutes, I might be able to tart that up with even more hipster jargon. not that I really want to...

  • Good luck, Dan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:21AM (#12542483) Homepage
    I hope the project enjoyes higher quality editing than the grassroots journalism project that is slashdot.

    • Re:Good luck, Dan (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:33AM (#12542614)
      You misunderstand. /. is not grassroots journalism. It's an online version of a pub. A bunch of drunken bastards bitching about the news of the day.
    • Slashdot 'editors' aren't really editors in the traditional sense of journalism editors, not even close really. They are just story approvers, who approve a story if they feel it is of interest to the general Slashdot crowd.

      The stories are just headlines and blurbs that link to an actual journalistic piece located on some other site.

      Slashdot's motto should be, We don't make the news, we don't report the news, we collect the news.

  • What a screwed up link.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by AkaXakA ( 695610 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:24AM (#12542511) Homepage
    So in case you missed it, this is infact TFA: Why Drupal [bayosphere.com].

    Worth noting is the update at the end of the article: Update: killes points out at Drupal.org, "Chris Messina (a.k.a factoryjoe) has spend long hours with Dan to convince him to use Drupal. Thanks Chris." Indeed.
  • Update: killes points out at Drupal.org, "Chris Messina (a.k.a factoryjoe) has spend long hours with Dan to convince him to use Drupal. Thanks Chris." Indeed.

    looks more like they needed serious persuading to choose it.
    • looks more like they needed serious persuading to choose it

      They did explain in the article that the reason that they had such trouble choosing was that there were just so many open source CMSs to choose from. The fact that they needed "seriously" persuaded shows, if anything, that Drupal stood up to a critical evalution with its peers, rather than being chosen on the say-so of a friend.

      So goodness all round :)

    • Perhaps one of the reasons is that with Drupal, more than a surface-level evaluation is needed. The power of single and multiple hierarchical taxonomies, for example, is not something the average person can understand at a glance, yet is incredibly powerful. Drupal is about structured information. That's power.
    • I worked with Dan early on in the design process for this project. At the time, I pushed Drupal (and CivicSpace [civicspacelabs.org] -- since I work for them) for its modularity, ease of hacking, community-centered design and superior architecture (taxonomy, etc) and for the experience I had using it on Spread Firefox, but I can't take credit for "convincing him". In fact, I didn't realize that the project had moved forward so much until it came up on the Drupal-dev list. But now the site has launched and I've talked with Dan,

  • Corrected Text (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:37AM (#12542649) Homepage

    I am the submitter of the article and here is the correct text. It was fine when I submitted it.

    kbahey [slashdot.org] writes " Most Slashdotters know Dan Gillmor [dangillmor.com] from his San Jose Mercury days, with lots of article on technology over the years, from the dot-com era down to now. As has been rumored before, Dan has left the SJ Mercury to found a "grass roots journalism" project. Well, it is here, and called the Bayosphere [bayosphere.com]. The site is powered by Drupal [drupal.org], an open source Content Management System. Jay Campbell, Dan's Technologist, writes about why they chose Drupal [bayosphere.com]. "

  • Most read the SJMerc? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    from TFA: Most Slashdotters know Dan Gillmor from his San Jose Mercury days

    I never realized that local california papers had such high readership in Bangalore or Boston or all the many other places /. readers read.

    • I never realized that local california papers had such high readership in Bangalore or Boston or all the many other places /. readers read.

      You don't know the San Jose Mercury [mercurynews.com], then. It was very widely read and influential during the dot-com boom in particular, and certainly would have been heavily read in Boston and probably Bangalore too (considering the software tech connection).

  • Can Net journalism be good journalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:46AM (#12542740)
    Desirable journalistic properties:
    1. Speed: the "new" in news.
    2. Accuracy: avoids all those silly retractions, libel, etc.
    3. Relevance: Information that is meaningful or interesting or useful to the reader.
    4. Depth: not popular among the CNN/USAToday set, but much needed.
    Does the net help?
    1. Speed: yes! two words: global bandwidth
    2. Accuracy: Maybe: Distributed information gathering and rapid feedback help jointly edit/discredit stories. But the process can also feed a "tyranny of the majority" group delusion.
    3. Relevance: Yes: feedback scoring mechanisms (such as /. moderation system) help good stories bubble-up and bad stories drop to invisibility.
    4. Depth: Yes: Wiki-like group editing can add depth, although it may be too slow for "news" stories (more appropriate for feature articles and thought pieces).
    Overall, I'd say that grassroots journalism could be good journalism if the system can create the self-regulatory structures needed. Something like (but better than) /. moderation/metamoderation system would be needed to create distributed control over who posts stories and how they are edited or augmented over time.
    • Smaller communities seem to be able to do the quality bits on their own (ie. www.scuttlebutt.org). There is always the "eyeballs" problem once a community voice enjoys a currency that its value is traded for advertiser "support" (read control).

      So its the politics of journalism in a capitalistic society that wants to control as much market through as many eyeball possible that begets bad journalism.
    • 3. Relevance: Yes: feedback scoring mechanisms (such as /. moderation system) help good stories bubble-up and bad stories drop to invisibility.

      What planet are you on? The /. moderation system only controls user comments, not stories. As a result, the stories are whatever crap the editors decided to slap together, while the only comments that get modded up are the ones that agree with the worldview of the moderators...

      I think you're thinking of something like kuro5hin, where the users actually can vote fo
    • Add to that:
      -Conciseness
      Strip out the fluff for those who just want the meat.

      -Separation of author opinions from the facts
      I want to judge things by myself first, then see what others would have to say about it afterwards, if necessary

      -Context for those who need it
      Ability to present a concise, meaningful and accurate big-picture view for those who are encountering the subject for the 1st time

      Oh and for me, accuracy comes first and foremost rather than speed. No contest.

  • To the naysayers: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:03AM (#12542924) Homepage
    It couldn't be any worse than what the big names in media do already. Newsweek played a major role in spreading a story about a soldier trying to flush part of the Koran down the toilet in gitmo. Just one little problem: Newsweek's "source" was an anonymous phone call from someone alleging to be a government official who paraphrased what they claimed was a report to be issued. They never even read an excerpt of the report to the Newsweek reporter and what did they do? They pounced on this "story" (as in a complete fiction) and now 9 people in Afghanistan are dead because the riot that Newsweek helped start got so out of control that the small fledgling Afghani government had to use a lot of force to stop huge crowds of rioting students and other civilians.

    The news media can talk about blogging killing the media, but bloggers haven't contributed to people being killed yet. The mainstream media on the other hand, has. So much for the much vaunted "accountability" that is supposed to separate blogging from "journalism" these days. That's what's always cited by the media as the important difference. While I don't trust bloggers either for objective reporting of the facts, can anyone seriously say that the professional media cares about the truth any more than bloggers do?

    • Re:To the naysayers: (Score:4, Informative)

      by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @12:28PM (#12544385)
      Newsweek's "source" was an anonymous phone call from someone alleging to be a government official who paraphrased what they claimed was a report to be issued.

      Newsweek's story was multiply sourced. The retraction by one source is about whether or not the Koran-flushing would appear in a particular government report, not whether the flushing of Koran pages occurred. Some released inmates from Gitmo have in the past (2004) said that their Korans were tossed in the toilet.

      Miami Herald, March 9 2005:
      Yet recently declassified court documents allege that, as far back as 2002, some of Guantanamo's staff cursed Allah, threw Korans into toilets, mocked prisoners during prayers and deliberately took away prisoners' pants knowing that Muslims can't pray unless covered.

      Maybe you should think and research a little before repeating white house talking points? At least try to learn from how this one was spun: a minor backing detail was changed, so they seized on that to try to destroy the messenger and never have to respond to the message. Sorry guys, there are too many other sources describing Koran desecration, and stories from US intelligence officers participating in mock prison camps (as inmates), where the bible was desecrated. Seems to be SOP when trying to break down religious inmates.

      The news media can talk about blogging killing the media, but bloggers haven't contributed to people being killed yet.

      How many bloggers such as Instapundit fed the lie machine that convinced the US populace to back an unneeded invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in 1600 dead US troops, 50 to 100 thousand Iraqis, and crippled our ability to control the Taliban in Afghanistan?

      • Re:To the naysayers: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Don't you mean 8,000-198,000 dead Iraqis? The only study that covers your 50,000-100,000 dead range is the Lancet study, which has a margin of error of around 92%. The next highest would be the UN, which is somewhere in the range of 18,000-32,000.

        Meanwhile your "multiple sources" was the original unnamed source who brought the allegation to Newsweeks attention (the man who has since retracted) and two Pentagon spokesmen who simply didn't contradict those claims. And it's nice that court documents allege

      • Al Qaeda training manual: Claim torture (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        When Al Qaeda members are caught, they'll claim anything to discredit the US. Thanks for playing their game.

        Yet recently declassified court documents allege that, as far back as 2002, some of Guantanamo's staff cursed Allah, threw Korans into toilets, mocked prisoners during prayers and deliberately took away prisoners' pants knowing that Muslims can't pray unless covered.

        Quick! Call a WAAAAMBULANCE! It's so HORRIBLE!!! Someone may have cursed their god!!!

        Seriously, you also seem to have a proble

  • Wikinews needs you (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eloquence ( 144160 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:09AM (#12543003)
    For the last 6 months, the community over at Wikinews [wikinews.org] has been building up a citizen journalism project that does not narrow its focus on a single region, or a single to topic. We have written over 1500 stories in English alone, including more than 60 that are based on original reporting by Wikinews writers from various regions (see this report [wikinews.org] for some examples). Unlike Bayosphere, Wikinews does not have a big fat copyright notice at the bottom -- our content is in the public domain, and free for anyone to use for any purpose.

    If you want to contribute, you can submit a story [wikinews.org] right away, or you can learn more about writing news stories the wiki way [wikinews.org].

    Wikinews is run by a non-profit organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, which also runs Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and the Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org], a media repository with almost 100,000 free content images, videos and sounds.

    • For the last 6 months, the community over at Wikinews has been building up a citizen journalism project that does not narrow its focus on a single region, or a single to topic.

      Focus can be a good thing. When I look at the Wikinews home page right now, I see an eclectic mix of headlines that look as though they might have been ripped from a combination of Reuters and Slashdot, but really not much of interest to me.

      This is intended as a constructive question: what is it that's going to bring read

      • At 5-25 stories a day, we can afford to put all of them on the frontpage. However, our mid term plan is to have topic portals, such as Science and technology [wikinews.org], or region portals, such as South America [wikinews.org], where you get all the news from that particular category. We already have some automation in use to do this, but it's a bit flaky, and we are in the process of putting in place an extension for MediaWiki [mediawiki.org] that will do a better job at it, and allow you to subscribe to individual categories via RSS.

        So, just lik

    • Yes, Wikinews precedes this, and has a larger scope. There is also a quite large and serious grass-roots news effort, Indymedia [indymedia.org], with branches and local reporters in the US, UK, and (I gather) many other countries.

      Problem is... how many of them have RSS? Wikinews doesn't seem to, which is why I'd forgotten all about it until you mentioned it. The idea of a web-based news service without RSS is a bit pointless, never mind a news service that aims to be innovative. Hopefully they'll get that sorted soon

    • The vast majority of Wikinews articles are merely culled and rewritten from mainstream sources. Because of this, I don't see how Wikinews can pretend to be a credible, factual, and bias-free alternative to the mainstream media. If Wikinews made a policy of accepting only original writing, then perhaps it would evolve into something more resembling Indymedia. In the meantime, it's little better than a manually-written version of Google news.

  • NowPublic.com (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DNSjunkie ( 117410 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:55AM (#12543509)
    NowPublic.com [nowpublic.com], a technology platform enabling citizen reporting is also based on drupal. The site has been live for about six or seven weeks now, and while they consider it a beta, I'd say it's has tons of promise.

    Outside of the single most established Korean based OhMyNews [ohmynews.com] most, if not all [cyberjournalist.net] of the citizen reporting web sites I've looked at, including WikiNews, have had a hard time gaining traction. I'm not sure why they're having such trouble, particularly given the popularity of WikiPedia, but it is clear however that the movement is beginning to take off, and here to stay. News will never be the same - and imho that is a VERY good thing!

    What I really like about NowPublic, and what imho differentiates it from the other sites, is that the site is NOT trying to be the hub of citizen reporting itself - it's trying to create a toolset to facilitate citizen reporting. Through creative commons licensing and their really nifty 'SmartMedia' technology their goal is to facilitate the spread of newsworthy information created by people like you and I (though admittedly they need to do a MUCH better job of communicating this). Anyone (you don't need to be a member) can use the content posted on NowPublic. So if you have a blog and are writing a story and you need/want pictures or video you can use existing or request new photos/audio/video from NP members.

    Being a photographer, I like the fact that through their SmartMedia my photos always show my name, and provide a way to contact me directly (actually had one person offer me a gig through this already!!) - this is all done through the image itself ensuring that anyone who uses my photos attributes it back to me (anyone who has posted a good pic to the web has most likely had it ripped off and should really apperciate this new idea). Additionally, anyone who sees the photo on any site can in turn copy it and put it on their site... it's really a great promotional vehicle for photographers. But my favorite bit is that every story is implicitly a request for citizen coverage - if you want to see a local perspective on a story, simply post it to the site. In effect every story is actually an assignment - you now have an army of people, soon to be larger than any major media organization willing to go out and get coverage of the story for you! As a photog, I'll never be at a loss for photos ideas again!

    They are currently running a contest, awarding cash prizes to encourage people to go out and take photographs of newsworthy events. Their Citizen Photojournalism Awards [nowpublic.com] were created to encourage people to go out and cover news stories. Any newsworthy photo uploaded to NowPublic is eligible for weekly $100 cash awards and there is a $500 grand prize. I'm hoping I win something so I can get that fish eye lens I've been drooling over.

  • nineteen eighty-what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by glamslam ( 535995 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:14AM (#12543678)
    Every time I ponder the implications of internet journalism I can't help but think of 1984. In George Orwell's classic dystopian tale, people are employed to change the newspapers to reflect the "truth" of the day. (ie. Iraq is our ally (1984), to Iraq has always been our enemy (2004)

    Fast-forward to 2004 (or 2005 I guess), and we have an internet news/media that does not have to remain persistant (like paper). Despite the valiant efforts of the Wayback Machine, Google Cache, etc., the vision in Orwell's book can actually happen!

    Although slightly off-topic, it is food for thought.....

  • The Drupal website has a list of sites running Drupal [drupal.org]. The list is dynamically generated by one of the Drupal modules. Any site that enables this module appears almost immediately. Pretty good for improving your search engine ranking.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close