h a l f b a k e r yCaution!
Contents may be not!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A online news column that is transparent and open source. The goal would be to encourage high quality free journalism. Anyone can submit stories, but only registered users can vote on them. Voting is done with weighted flagging, like eBay. Articles can be flagged negative, neutral, or positive using
three ratings:
Good story (+/-)
Good references (+/-)
Good spelling/grammar (+/-)
A list of the articles are displayed on the home page, sorted by popularity. The most popular articles are considered to be the ones with highest average rating.
The 3 ratings are given equal weight. For example, a story with +30 votes for story, -25 votes for references, and +10 votes for spelling/grammar has an average rating of 5 ((30 + 10 - 25) / 3).
http://digg.com/
[jutta, May 20 2007]
Wikinews
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page
[DrBob, May 22 2007]
Truth Dig
http://www.truthdig.com
Open Blogging... with an editor [ColonelMuffins, May 22 2007]
[link]
|
| |
My worry would be the amount of recycling of old news / opinion on such a site. |
|
| |
To get real news, I think you'd have to rely on two sources; (1) insiders anonymously blowing the whistle on something that's been happening where they work, (2) professional journalists itching to tell stories that their bosses won't let them run with. |
|
| |
Sources of type (1) would probably only be good for one story each, and that at some risk to themselves. |
|
| |
Sources of type (2) might be embittered obsessives, and their bosses might be blocking them for a good reason. |
|
| |
Between them, these two types could well produce some worthwhile information, but I don't think they'd be representative of 'those who complain about the media'. How important is that to the idea? |
|
| |
My complaints about the media don't tend to have anything to do with spelling or grammar (you expect that as a given) and you don't tend to see references printed in a newspaper. |
|
| |
That leaves the story. When I'm reading a paper (or the halfbakery), I'll pick out the stories that I think I will find interesting - practising my selection based on the headline, picture or perceived subject matter. Having done this, I might then be in a position to rate the story, but what about all those ones I left out? How do you rate those? |
|
| |
Then there's the problem that the media is already too democratic anyway. e.g. If enough Daily Mail/Express readers buy enough papers containing enough stories about Lady Diana conspiracy theories, satan worshipping illegal immigrants, benefit cheats who drive Ferraris, or Brittney Hilton driving her car without any knickers on, the papers containing these stories will continue to print that kind of bollocks. It's been going on for years. |
|
| |
"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." Thomas Jefferson |
|
| |
Other than the trisection of ratings, isn't this just yet another tagging system? |
|
| |
no knickers whatsoever - of any description. none. |
|
| |
My car doesn't have knickers either. |
|
| |
"To get real news, I think you'd have to rely on two sources; (1) insiders anonymously blowing the whistle on something that's been happening where they work, (2) professional journalists itching to tell stories that their bosses won't let them run with." |
|
| |
Only people at workplaces and disgruntled journalists are reliable? |
|
| |
"Other than the trisection of ratings, isn't this just yet another tagging system?" |
|
| |
"...you don't tend to see references printed in a newspaper." |
|
| |
And for some reason all our news is inaccurate. |
|
| |
"...media is already too democratic anyway. [cites tabloid sales]" |
|
| |
Capitalism is the same as democratic media? |
|
| |
"without ANY knickers???" |
|
| |
An inside joke, ... helpful. |
|
| |
Isn't this exactly what people do in blogs? |
|
| |
>> "Other than the trisection of ratings, isn't this just yet another tagging system?"
> As opposed to? |
|
| |
I don't understand your reply.
My point is that websites already exist that allow people to tell each other about, and vote on, articles in blogs or in the mainstream media. |
|
| |
The way I'd like to encourage high quality journalism is to give money to those who engage in it, but of course that contradicts your premise. |
|
| |
>"without ANY knickers???"
>An inside joke, ... helpful.
I think it is just a reference to the recently-published pictures of Britney Spears (american singer) getting out of her car. The photographer has captured the moment when she opens her legs to exit the car and shows that she is not wearing underwear. |
|
| |
Yeah, if it was an inside joke, I'm afraid I was on the outside of that one. |
|
| |
I looked at the pictures. I too was happy to be on the outside of that one! |
|
| |
//My car doesn't have knickers either//
Come and live near me, marklar. We have lots of car nickers here.
Isn't Wikinews just what is being described here? There isn't voting as such but there is a discussion board associated with each article and it's open source news. |
|
| |
//Only people at workplaces and disgruntled journalists are reliable?// |
|
| |
Only people at workplaces and disgruntled journalists are likely to know anything important that hasn't already been published. |
|
| |
I could reliably inform you of the weather in my neighbourhood, but that wouldn't really count as news. |
|
| |
If you wanted reliable, democratic news about, say, Iraq, you'd probably have to rely on someone who'd been there, either as part of the occupation or as a journalist. An average Iraqi could tell you 'the shooting was bad today so we stayed indoors', but if you wanted to know who ordered that shooting and who covered it up, you'd probably have to fall back on whistle-blowers and professional dirt-diggers. |
|
| |
//Capitalism is the same as democratic media?// |
|
| |
Sadly, it sort of is. Apart from the occasional crass political intervention by media barons, a lot of the rubbish in the media is there because people choose to buy it. It's been said that people get the governments they deserve, and the same could be said of media. |
|
| |
Truth Dig [link] I think is close to the
business model you're looking for. It's
basically open blogging by real
journalists on specific subjects. Then
readers can openly comment on things,
which sparks discussion. |
|
| |
But in the end don't we all 'vote' on who
and what we like to read simply by
reading it. A journalist who improves
circulation and becomes circulated is
one who is popular. We have always had
this sort of voting system in place it just
takes place under the surface. |
|
| |