Interesting excerpt for my topic from the article by PandoDaily: "Is all social platform content inherently untrustworthy or is it possible to elevate it with journalism’s standards of higher quality and ethics?
We know that traditional methods of screening – e.g. professional editors directly supervising every piece of content – aren’t going to work. Social sites generate too much content for that.
Before despairing the conflict is irresolvable, I’d point out that even some professional journalists rely heavily on Wikipedia, perhaps the best example of generally high-quality crowd-sourced content.
The fact is, there are ways to improve the quality, and reliability of social journalism. Here are a bunch of practical suggestions about how to bring journalistic ethos to the new hybrid models.
- Label contributors prominently. E.g. Staff Writer. Staff Columnist. Staff Curator. Expert Contributor, Expert Curator, Guest contributor. Reader Contribution. Clue in the audience who’s who.
- Publish staff, contributor and reader credentials as part of a profile linked to all their bylines. I recommend LinkedIn style profiles, with links to articles written for the site or anyone else. Let the audience have plenty of information to decide if a contributor is trustworthy.
- Signing up a guest or expert contributor is a tacit endorsement.
- Business publication, in particular, should consider mandating that contributors take formal online ethics training.
- Getting featured on a content channel should require a curator’s approval (paid professionals or expert volunteers), rather than automated inclusion based on subject matter or pre-approval of the author.
- Unlike social networks, consider only allowing users to follow curated channels, not individual posters.
- Consistently highly-scoring content contributors (including staff) should be labeled as such, so they can gain a reputation as being trustworthy.
- If content has been rejected by curators, or not socially shared, or has poor engagement time and few up votes, screen it for deletion. Provide feedback to contributors facing deletion. Social journalism is not just about increasing the amount of content. It’s about increasing quality of information..."
Although feedback on the Petal Diagram is generally great, some people are critical of the form and usefulness of the Petal Diagram especially in presenting proposals to investors. Perhaps, the strongest critique of the Petal Diagram comes from fellow Venture Capitalist, Tomasz Tunguz who blogged on: “Why the Petal Diagram Isn’t the Best Competition Diagram for Startup’s Pitch..