Bildbloggers as unpaid editors

A good one: Bildblog, which has become Germany’s most linked-to blog by looking giant Bild-Zeitung over the shoulder, has sent the somewhat larger “team” a bill of 2088 euro. It appears that the editors at Bild’s online version correct mistakes surprisingly schnell after the Bildbloggers have pinpointed them. So the bloggers claim that they have in effect become unpaid external fact-checkers and editors…

Sound advice

Text of a Dan Gillmor lecture , where he gives some good advice on how to enhance “thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence and transparency” in journalism on the web. Just what is needed: move on from slogans to detailed work.

Hopefully there will be more of that at the We Media 2006 conference in London in the coming week, which I’m looking forward to attend.

A public service MySpace

The BBC’s new online strategy is to build a public service version of, according to Media Guardian. The broadcaster would “refocus all future BBC digital output and services around three concepts – “share”, “find” and “play”:

[T]he share concept would allow users to “create your own space and to build around you”, encouraging them to launch ther own blogs and post home videos on the site. The BBC is also running a competition to revamp the 2.0 website, asking the public to redesign the homepage to “exploit the fuctionality and usability of services such as Flickr, YouTube, Technorati and Wikipedia”.

The conclusions stem from an internal “Creative Future” review (more here).

Since the BBC usually have led the way for other public service broadcasters – showed them how to innovate – it’s always interesting to note BBC ideas. Now their thinking seems to be veery far ahead of their peers such as our NRK. Another example is the Creative Archive project. BBC Backstage yet another…

Participatory media

Funny how The Economist still uses “New media” as heading for stories about web developments, blogs, wikis and the like, which they later call participatory media – that sounds better. Anyway, they give this topic the full survey treatment in the new issue (most stories are subscriber only). And they’re not afraid of comparing Ben and Mena Trott with Hr. Gutenberg. The concluding piece (sub.) ponders possible outcomes of the “revolution” – because in revolutions, there are winners and losers:

The honest conclusion, of course, is that nobody knows whether the era of participatory media will, on balance, be good or bad. As with most revolutions, it is a question of emphasis. Generally speaking, people who have faith in democracy welcome participatory media, whereas people who have reservations will be nostalgic for the top-down certainties of the mass media.

One could add: Those who are especially happy for participatory media also tend to believe in participatory democracy, they believe that participation is inherently positive and a healthy sign (not all democracy theorists agree there).

Watch out for patriotic media debate

David Montgomery might not be alone in reviewing Orkla Media. According to The Times, private equity bidders are lining up. You don’t have to be a genius to predict the media debate that would accompany bids from foreign PE groups. Previously Norwegian media owners, supported by politicians, have routinely invoked the terrible consequences of a Murdoch or Berlusconi let loose on the Norwegian media market (while consolidating their own ownership).

Open access by brute force?

Jill is preparing a presentation at an open access scientific publishing conference in Bergen. Jill, of course, registers her work at the university’s institutional repository Bora. But the people running it have great problems catching the interest of professors and researchers. Even doctoral candidates: Only 15 percent agree to publish their dissertations in Bora, and many don’t even bother to reply to requests.

I would think that the chance to get your work out to the public and the scientific world should be incentive enough for researchers, but obviously that isn’t the case. So what could speed them up? Extra pay? An open access police force (if they could find the professors, that is)? Web publishing courses given by Jill?

UPDATE: In her extended entry from the presentation, Jill lists some reasons why scientists are reluctant.