Talk:Online journalism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles

Internet

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles

.

Feedback

I've been working on the stub for Broadcast Journalism. I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has as well as any suggestions for further expansion on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac9986 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed

"Most Internet users agree that on-line sources are often less biased and more informative than the official media. This claim is often backed with the belief that on-line journalists are merely volunteers and freelancers who are not paid for their activity, and therefore are free from corporate ethics. But recently many Internet forums began to moderate their boards because of threat of vandalism, which many users see as a form of censorship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.123.121 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather ridiculous claim, and perhaps you'll be pleased to see that it's been modified at least some. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-Up Request

This article is a little bit hard to understand because some information seemed to be just thrown in wherever. I cleaned up parts of it, but there's still several parts I was afraid to go into. The information could be better ordered and could go under more headings.

More than that, though, there are several things that border on self-promotion to me:

Mention of the News & Observer near the top (unless it was really important to online journalism)
Mention of Indy Media at the top of the "Work outside traditional press" section
Mention of About.com and Expatica near the bottom of the "Work outside traditional press" section (do they have anything to do with journalism?)

And then there's the National Guard service mention, about the CBS report on President Bush's service record and how it was discredited. Yes, blogs were important in that incident. Perhaps more detail on what actually happened would be nice. (I hesitate to leave this in; I don't want to open a can of worms since the incident is so recent. I fear that it could escalate into an edit war between a handful of politically-charged people.) I'm staying out of it because I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to "Memogate."

When I have more time, I'll see what I can do. Thank you for your patience. -Oddtoddnm 07:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

This article has some problems, but the N&O mention is not among them. Sources TK. Maurreen (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the N&O mention is that it practically begins the article. Defining online journalism does not need to begin with an example of an early leader. In a rewrite of the article, the wording about N&O should be retained (I know why it's mentioned, the people behind nando.net were my heroes) but perhaps it should be under a subheading of pioneers. Tale 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given what wikipedia is, this article is surprisingly weak at present. I am about to link to it from Hurricane Katrina and it would be nice to have a stronger description given the number of people who turn to online journalism sources and the issues that online journalism have raised during this crisis. Sbwoodside 05:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more--and apparently it's been in this state for four years now. I placed some tags on it. The article really reads like an endorsement of a specific kind of journalism, full of weasel claims and generalities--and it has only one single references. That's pretty sad. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this article and yes, it's pretty bad. I added a few paragraphs of new information about the current state of the industry (mostly American sources, sorry) and a bunch of citations: please feel free to try to integrate them better into the rest of the article. I'll try to help more later also. Sue Gardner (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Digital journalism should be merged with this article. 'Digital journalism' and 'Online journalism' are different names for the same thing, and the articles to some extent duplicate one another. If you have any comments on this proposed merge, please leave them below. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Citations Needed

Clean-Up Request

Category

Merge