Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
True, but I would just modify that statement a little bit to
"supplementing ET as a largely transient newspaper like article stream with a semi-permanent if updatable knowledge database"
based on Migeru's points that ET is a blog, that means it's a FIFO or a collection of FIFOs. We don't want to lose that format. We would integrate the blog with MediaWiki - ETpedia would contain the "position papers".
You see, I've already trying to wiki-edit your comment! (^_^) A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Wikipedia is getting quite a reputation as a reasonably reliable, very comprehensive, and yet accessible knowledge base which allows people to get a handle on a topic very quickly. How do you want to position ETpedia relative to that space?
We can certainly have an internal Wiki, but realistically Wikis aren't considered 'serious' by the MSM. That could well be their loss, but the MSM are still the main medium for getting points into the mainstream, and we need to follow their format if we want to - actually get points into the mainstream.
We need a press presence. We need a point of contact for press people, and we need to send out regular press releases. We may also need a serious website. I don't think a Wiki will do the job, because it's not the right tool for the job at hand - which is media impact, not information aggregation. Something like Comment is Free with an ET twist might.
All of this may be window dressing and fluff as far as the content goes. But in terms of prescience and analysis we have some of the best content in the blogosphere, and a lot of it is being wasted because more people aren't seeing it.
On average we seem to be running about two to five years ahead of Conventional Wisdom. If we want to start changing all of Teh Stupid that makes up conventional wisdom we need to be much more active about crafting a solid media presence and making sure that talking points are pushed regularly znd reliably into national and international debate.
For example, searching on
olympic torch relay site:cnn.com
will only pull up articles from CNN's website on that topic.
It turns out that not just new publications and organizations come up in Google news, but "think tanks" like The New America Foundation and the The Century Foundation also come up on Google News searches, while others like The Economic Policy Institute and The Progressive Policy Institute do not come up at all.
It would be interesting to learn what differentiates these, and to see if we can get EuroTrib.com to come up on Google News searches as well. A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Here are some ideas Colman and I were kicking about today regarding "ET 2.0":
I think this is a great proposal.
I understand the basic concept of using MediaWiki, but I have a question regarding how it has been used in practice (other than Wikipedia, and only very superficially there).
If we use MediaWiki, do you think we can almost let the revision and update process for "position papers" be run on automatic? In other words, with MediaWiki, is it likely that we won't even have to task individuals or teams explicitly to draft and polish these articles? In practice, could we rely on those passionate and knowledgeable enough about the topics concerned to "get it right", with only intermittent and minor editorial and/or community intervention/judgement calls?
Personally, I am very optimistic about this possibility, and confident that it will be very successful. But this is just based on a gut feel (in turn based on what I know about EuroTrib folks). However, I was curious if there is data out there about MediaWiki implementations that would reality-check such optimism.
(I am aware that Wikipedia employs personnel -- volunteers, too? -- to handle "wiki-vandalism" and to make other editor level decisions. But since the group of writer-editors here would not only [presumably] all be registered as EuroTrib members, but would be far smaller in number, that sort of editorial overhead should be far far less, and utterly manageable. Hopeless optimism again?)
(For the record, I don't like the term "position paper", but it's the only one that comes to mind so far that fits the bill.) A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
I'd envisage locked "final" versions of documents in some cases, together with supporting documentation and so on.
is development on ET 2.0 already in process, or are there decisions still pending? i guess i am just curious if the incorporation of the MediaWiki thing is already something to be expected, or something that still needs to be greenlighted and that may or may not actually happen.
from Migeru's phrase "kicking about", i am guessing everything is still very much up in the air, but i just wanted to find out for sure. A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Two things are immediately clear:
Related to that, I am assuming that Wikipedia's Contents and List of Topics are completely manually created (i.e. not dynamically/programmatically generated), is that correct? A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
The notion of using mediawiki as a participative self-empowering community knowledge management tool really excites me.
Isn't that what MediaWiki was written for in the first place?
However I'm still struggling with how we would present ETmedia to a wider audience. We're not an encyclopedia, we're not a political or campaigning organisation although we do do politics and sometimes campaign, we strive to be evidence and fact based but from a "progressive" perspective, we're not an on-line newspaper or current affairs e-zine, we're not just a blog or a group of nerds with no friends and lots of time to spend on-line. So what are we -in simple terms that simple journalists can understand and communicate - and why should they give any especial importance to what we have to day? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Also, we're the people we have been waiting for. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
we're the people we have been waiting for.
And if what we want is to change the conventional wisdom, is greatly increasing the number of our readership/membership the primary concern? It's just as effective to be read by a smaller number of influential people (measured by how many people read them). When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I know this sounds horribly commercial, but you do have an established brand which you are not leveraging very much. I see someone else has now taken up the Eurotribune.eu and .net domains and styles themselves as "The European Tribune: Independent Journal - and is sometimes ranked above Eurotrib in google rankings. You stand still in this game, and you could lose prominence very quickly.
How many of the Eurotrib.* domains do we not own? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Note that they have funding from some sort of EU media programme.
Any reason why we can't apply for similar support, especially as we are far more pan european in membership and with a significant input/influence beyond yurp? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
