Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.
As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."
By Emma, Nat and Ella.
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
After 6 weeks in a collaborative user-producer environment, I am beginning to see that quality control is a major issue. In tutorial last week we were asked anyone had received comments on their blog. I was quick to point out that I had, and after receiving this feedback I had edited my blog so that my message was clearer. As you mention Emma, quality is ascertained by the collective “gatewatching” (Bruns 2008) process, to evaluate the relevance and reliability of sources produced. In this instance, our peers and members of Google Blogger are our gatewatchers, providing feedback on areas for improvement.
I am beginning to see how important this process is in the communication, reflection and interpretation of ideas. This process actually relates back to the very beginning of semester, to the concept of DIKW: data, information, knowledge and wisdom (Bellinger, Castro and Mills 2004). I can see now that if the data I have collected is not then transcribed into relevant information, then a third party will not be able to ascertain the same knowledge, and interpret the same meaning of my message. I realise this sounds like a long and convoluted resolution to this assignment, I’ll use an example to help explain.
Obviously a fellow blogger had misinterpreted the information I had provided in my blog, and was therefore reading a different message than I had intended. Without the process of feedback I would’ve never been aware that my message was being misinterpreted, and would not have been able to remedy the situation. Resulting in miscommunication and confusion of ideas.
Bellinger, G., D. Castro and A. Mills. 2004. Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm (accessed May 12, 2008).
Bruns, A. 2008. Week 10 Podcast: Citizen Journalism. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed May 12, 2008).
Post a Comment