Comments on: APME: Google and newspapers http://pmaples.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/google/ journalism, new media and ideas Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:58:58 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Google wants to save newspapers? Maybe they HAVE to. :: Tom Altman’s Wedia Conversation http://pmaples.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/google/#comment-9 Google wants to save newspapers? Maybe they HAVE to. :: Tom Altman’s Wedia Conversation Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:32:20 +0000 http://pmaples.wordpress.com/?p=38#comment-9 [...] was also quoted saying: Schmidt drew quite a bit of attention a few months back when he said the company has a “moral [...] [...] was also quoted saying: Schmidt drew quite a bit of attention a few months back when he said the company has a “moral [...]

]]> By: Google’s on board! http://pmaples.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/google/#comment-6 Google’s on board! Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:24:22 +0000 http://pmaples.wordpress.com/?p=38#comment-6 [...] This, via Journalism Hope, is a pretty hefty endorsement: [Google senior adviser Richard] Gingras urges editors to take a lesson from Wikipedia’s redefinition of the encyclopedia.Although it has no original reporting, Wikipedia is becoming a popular source for news. To illustrate this, Gingras shows a recent Google search on the anthrax attacks. The first result: a Wikipedia article. The second: The site of a man who has been researching and following the case for several years. People are going to these sites, and referring others to them, in large enough numbers to drive them to the top of page rankings, he says. The Wikipedia article is nearly 5,000 words and also has multiple sources linked. On big news stories, Gingras argues, Wikipedia’s contributors usually go a good job of pulling together a lot of reliable material — often from newspaper sites — and updating it continually. [...] [...] This, via Journalism Hope, is a pretty hefty endorsement: [Google senior adviser Richard] Gingras urges editors to take a lesson from Wikipedia’s redefinition of the encyclopedia.Although it has no original reporting, Wikipedia is becoming a popular source for news. To illustrate this, Gingras shows a recent Google search on the anthrax attacks. The first result: a Wikipedia article. The second: The site of a man who has been researching and following the case for several years. People are going to these sites, and referring others to them, in large enough numbers to drive them to the top of page rankings, he says. The Wikipedia article is nearly 5,000 words and also has multiple sources linked. On big news stories, Gingras argues, Wikipedia’s contributors usually go a good job of pulling together a lot of reliable material — often from newspaper sites — and updating it continually. [...]

]]> By: Gary Wolf http://pmaples.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/google/#comment-5 Gary Wolf Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:32:16 +0000 http://pmaples.wordpress.com/?p=38#comment-5 Thanks Pam for this report. I think this is a very intelligent way of thinking about news. Keep in mind that the story does not have remain associated with a single writer - it could be maintained by a group, or passed from person to person. Although the focus here is on newspapers, it is also relevant to magazines. I move from story to story at Wired, but I notice that the email I receive (after a big initial burst), slowly becomes disassociated with the date of publication, as the stories attract readers through Web links. They become stand-alone pieces, disconnected from any particular issue of the magazine. The business model of a magazine is not set up to capture this readership - any more than the business model of a newspaper is. But that doesn't matter to readers, who are oblivious to what we think we are doing. They are following a different thread, the thread of their curiosity, web links, etc. Gary Wolf Contributing editor, Wired Thanks Pam for this report. I think this is a very intelligent way of thinking about news. Keep in mind that the story does not have remain associated with a single writer – it could be maintained by a group, or passed from person to person. Although the focus here is on newspapers, it is also relevant to magazines. I move from story to story at Wired, but I notice that the email I receive (after a big initial burst), slowly becomes disassociated with the date of publication, as the stories attract readers through Web links. They become stand-alone pieces, disconnected from any particular issue of the magazine. The business model of a magazine is not set up to capture this readership – any more than the business model of a newspaper is. But that doesn’t matter to readers, who are oblivious to what we think we are doing. They are following a different thread, the thread of their curiosity, web links, etc.

Gary Wolf
Contributing editor, Wired

]]>