“Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand.” – Confucius

This is bound to be controversial: A spare description of newspaper websites, Slashdot, IndyMedia, MyDD, Daily Kos, Digg, and blogs:

When I go do a newspaper or magazine website, what do I see and what can I do?

I see a sets of headlines, story leads, and links. These are written by paid authors, usually on staff, and filtered by an editorial team. The editorial team I do not know, and have to go thru some work to discover and contact. Sometimes there are links for me to email the author of a story. Sometimes there are discussion threads attached to the stories themselves. But most have forums, usually far removed from these stories. Stories are almost always multiple paragraphs, original, detailed. Usually backed by the newspaper or magazine to be trust worthy. Additional context, including related links, on an author or story is accessible, but more times then not, it is trapped behind archive pay walls. There are rarely rewards for participation. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, but that discussion is hard to discover and is usually not linked from the story itself (that is changing – see Newsweek and Washington Post and their use of Technorati).

When I go to Slashdot, what do I see and what can I do?

I see a set of headlines, story leads, and links. Stories are usually written by its community, however anyone can post anonymously. Stories are filtered by an editorial team that is accessible, and don’t have to go thru hoops to contact. Each story has a discussion thread that enables one to give immediate feedback to the author, editors, and community. Stories are usually a single paragraph, most times just the a summary pointing to another original piece (many times from a newspaper – but not always), however, longer original pieces *are* posted that resemble what you would find in a newspaper. Participants in the discussion thread help critique stories for accuracy and relevancy. Participants in the discussion thread help filter the discussion thread itself by ranking the relevancy of these comments. Additional context, including related links, on the author or topic is easily accessible, some of which is posted in the discussion thread. There are huge rewards to participate – to submit stories, to participate in discussion threads. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, but that discussion is hard to discover and is usually not linked directly from the story itself.

When I go to IndyMedia, what do I see and what can I do?

I see two sets of headlines, story leads, and links. Stories are usually written by its community, however anyone can post anonymously. All stories are shown in the newswire right hand rail (usually located there). Stories given emphasis are filtered by an editorial team that is accessible, and don’t have to go thru hoops to contact. Each story has a discussion thread that enables one to give immediate feedback to the author, editors, and community. Stories are usually a single paragraph, most times just the a summary pointing to another original piece (many times from a newspaper – but not always), however, longer original pieces *are* posted that resemble what you would find in a newspaper. Participants in the discussion thread help critique stories for accuracy and relevancy. Additional context, including related links, on the author or topic is easily accessible, some of which is posted in the discussion thread. There are huge rewards to participate – to submit stories, to participate in discussion threads. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, but that discussion is hard to discover and is usually not linked directly from the story itself.

When I go to MyDD or DailyKos, what do I see and what can I do?

I see a set of headlines, story leads, and links. Stories are written by its community and are filtered by via popular vote, everyone is accessible (for the most part), and can be contacted directly. Each story has a discussion thread that enables one to give immediate feedback to the author, editors, and community. Stories are usually a single paragraph, most times just the a summary pointing to another original piece (many times from a newspaper – but not always), however, longer original pieces *are* posted that resemble what you would find in a newspaper. Participants in the discussion thread help critique stories for accuracy and relevancy. Additional context, including related links, on the author or topic is easily accessible, some of which is posted in the discussion thread. There are huge rewards to participate – to submit stories, to participate in discussion threads. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, but that discussion is hard to discover and is usually not linked directly from the story itself.

When I go to Digg, what do I see and what can I do?

I see a set of headlines, story leads, and links. Stories are written by its community and are filtered by via popular vote, everyone is accessible (for the most part), and can be contacted directly. Each story has a discussion thread that enables one to give immediate feedback to the author and community. Stories are one to two sentences. Some pieces span up to a paragraph and can resemble what you would find in Slashdot, but are not the norm. No original pieces are posted. Participants in the discussion thread help critique stories for accuracy and relevancy. Additional context, including related links, on the author or topic is easily accessible, some of which is posted in the discussion thread. There are huge rewards to participate – to submit stories, to participate in discussion threads. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, but that discussion is hard to discover and is usually not linked directly from the story itself.

When I go to a blog, what do I see and what can I do?

I see a set of headlines, story leads, and links. Stories are usually written by its author, or team of authors, who act as their own editor. You usually don’t have to go thru hoops to contact the author. Each story usually has a discussion thread that enables one to give immediate feedback to the author and community. Stories are most times a single paragraph, usually just the a summary pointing to another reference, however, longer original pieces are posted that resemble what you would find in a newspaper or magazine. Indeed, story structure varies widely. Participants in discussion threads help critique stories for accuracy and relevancy. Additional context, including related links, on the author or topic is easily accessible, some of which is posted in the discussion thread. There are huge rewards to participate, to comment, to connect. Stories are sometimes vetted/discussed by the web community at large, and it is getting easier to discover since most forward thinking blog authors include links to Technorati and other conversation bridging services.

References:

August 1999: Wired: Slashdot: All the News that Fits

August 1999: First Monday: Honest News In The Slashdot Decade

December 2001: First Monday: Independent Media Centers: Cyber Subversion and the Alternative Press

March 2003: Software (,) Politics and Indymedia

Slashdot-style software: Scoop

Alex Bosworth: Dynamics of Digg

Digg-style software: pligg-o-rific

O’Reilly Radar: nat: Digging The Madness of Crowds

digg.com: O’Reilly writer Steve Mallett has stolen digg’s code

Steve Mallett’s linuxfilter

Yahoo!’s Jeremy Zawodny: Slashdot is Going out of Style in 2006

Business Week: How Digg Uncovers the News

Slashdot: A Recipe for Newspaper Survival in the Internet Age

Guardian Unlimited: Will Slashdot be overtaken by Digg?

Slashdot: On the Matter of Slashdot Story Selection

Thoughts? Feedback?

And I know you are…check out this fascinating debate on DRM.

You may know him from Blankbaby, his terrific local blog, including podcasts and now videocasts, or the Philadelphia Webloggers Meetup, which he runs as a volunteer for Philly Future. Maybe you know him from Wharton, where he’s on the IT staff. But for those Philly folks who don’t know, he also works for Weblogs Inc’s The Unofficial Apple Weblog and yesterday must have been near Mac nirvana. A notable post, for me, was his probing of Apple folks into explaining how that, with work, iWeb can publish to non iMac servers. Scott rocks.

The whole of Weblogs Inc has been on fire these past two weeks with its coverage of CES and now MacWorld. I mean… who needs CNet anymore?

Scott, if you’re reading – I have no idea how you do it all man. And ya make it look easy.

I’m building a reading list related to online publishing in relationship to newspapers and journalism.

You can see the ongoing list here, but in terms of books, I’m not as well read as some. What I have as must read books are:

• Joe Trippi: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised : Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything
• The Media Center: We Media
• Dan Gillmor: We The Media
• David Weinberger: Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web
• Chris Locke, Doc Searls, David Weinberger: The Cluetrain Manifesto
• David Shenk: Data Smog

Suggestions, thoughts?

That’s the interpetation of a law Bush signed last Thursday, of Declan McCullagh at CNet.

There are various discussions going on about just what this law, that is supposed to protect against cyberstalking, covers:

Boing Boing, Concurring Opinons, Atrios, Garance Franke-Ruta at The Prospect, Metafilter, Bayosphere, Jeff Jarvis, Dan Rubin.

Read the text of the law at Thomas.gov

Feel free to send more links and thoughts along.

New Scientist: Take a leap into hyperspace: the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual conference. Last year’s winner in the nuclear and future flight category went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There’s just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics.

I’ve taken my sweet time putting up this bookmarklet at Philly Future, but now it’s there for you to add to your browser. One click to share with the community.

At DecisionOne, back when it was called Bell Atlantic Business System’s Services, I was part of the team that grew its intranet. We did it without MIS approval, right under their noses, to satisfy the needs of our users and of management. We had to build it, and support for it, grassroots up, due to the lock on resources. Someday soon I hope to write the sequel to “How I Got A Career”, to detail our effort a bit, what it ment for us and our business at the time. I believe the experience, and lessons learned, have stuck with me. At least I hope so.

the cluetrain manifesto – chapter one – Internet Apocalypso:

The autonomous PC challenged the hegemony of mainframe computer systems and enabled the development of quick solutions that could end-run the infamous MIS-bottleneck – the fact that it could take months for computer applications to be created and executed to deliver needed information. Then IT management discovered the LAN, which delivered another layer of utility. However, instead of leveraging this new resource for the benefit of “users” – even that word is an artifact of the mentality – the IT department largely used the LAN to reestablish control over information access and work environments.

Now, many companies are doing the same thing again with the intranet. You get this rule-book mindset – the corporation’s common look and feel, logo placement, legal number of words on each Web page. Whatever. It’s all so cramped and constipated and uninviting. Dead. The people who actually built the intranet – created the content that makes it valuable – bail out, looking for another, more open system. And today that’s easy to find.

Remember the context for all this. Twenty years ago, or even five, only corporations could provide the kind of resources needed to process even modest volumes of information. The cost of such systems was a significant barrier to entry for new businesses that might become competitors. But today individuals have this kind of power in their rec rooms. And they can get all the Internet they can eat for a few bucks a month. If the company doesn’t come through with the kind of information and delivery that turns them on – provides learning, advances careers, and nurtures the unbridled joy of creation – well, hey, they’ll just do it elsewhere. Maybe in the garage.

This sort of thing has already been happening for a while now, of course, but there’s more on the way, and not just from the usually suspected quarters. To understand what’s really happening on the Internet, you have to get down beneath the commercial hype and hoopla, which – though it gets 90 percent of the press – is actually a late arrival. From the beginning, something very different has been brewing online. It has to do with living, with livelihood, with craft, connection, and community. This isn’t some form of smarmy New Age mysticism, either. It’s tough and gritty and it’s just beginning to find its voice, its own direction. But it’s also difficult to describe; as the song says, “It’s like trying to tell a stranger about rock and roll.” And it’s next to impossible to understand unless you’ve experienced it for yourself. You have to live in the Net for a while.

At this level, things are often radically other than they appear. A new kind of logic is emerging, or needs to. I call it gonzo business management – paradox become paradigm. We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto, and we might as well get used to it. There’s a huge opportunity here for individuals to keep their day jobs but at the same time to indulge their natural human bent for self-expression.

Companies that try to prevent this sort of creativity within their firewalls need to have their collective heads examined. Conversely, companies that foster and encourage it will win big. The best software, design, music, graphics, writing – elegant, artistic, fantastically interesting and valuable content – are coming out of places where people feel their creativity is valued. Places where inspiration is paramount and posturing means nothing.

Watch it. Loaded question. Counts upon your point of view and how you define hirearchy or subversion. Shelley Powers has a list of participants in the discussion.

I’ve mostly taken part in the discussion in the context of David Weinberger’s thread, but I can’t help but repost a little of the following….

Ask yourself: Are you a “wiggly worm”, “lowly insect”, “insignificant microbe”, “large mammal”, or “higher being”?

The TTLB ecosystem – as defined by how your peers link to you lets you know. Think about it. Don’t tell me you don’t want to join to track your ranking either.

What does that say?