Search results for query: *

Online ads are generally too small and badly designed obtrusive and too nervous. I suggested to use big, nice ads (analogue to print) and separate them clearly from content. They started implementing such an ad yesterday on das Magazin, and I think it works quite nicely...

Can someone please explain to this guy how print finances itself. My bad prose obviously is not clear enough. (Print finances itself mainly through advertisement. The money you pay at the news stand pays for the paper and the printing cost. Why is that so hard to understand?)

That is EXACTLY what I am saying, and that is why, economically speaking, it is only logical that news online are free - as long as there is advertisement paying for the writing, editing, backoffice etc.

Why should we start paying for contents? We didn't pay for them for the last 80 years. We used to pay for paper, but now that publishing costs are close to 0, we don't need to. Why are journalists so obsessed with the few cents we used to pay for the PAPER? Charging for contents is not the old...

Is he famous around here?

What the hell are you talking about?

Okay, then let me try it this way: A) What happens if you search for "Bush", "middle east" or "russia" or basically whatsoever on Google. You get a wikipedia result right at the top. Why do you think that is? Because newspapers do everything right and wikipedia does everything wrong? 1...

Newspapers are wasting tons of money by closing their archives. Opening the archives would lead to a strong search engine performance, if not: search engine dominance of current newspapers (dominance is currently held by wikipedia...). Now put ads on every page in the archive... But some old...

You are right, I have been too busy explaining wikipedia to wikipedia-phobics, while there are way more interesting points to talk about: Newspapers have to transform from print focussed enterprises to universal media enterprises. What medium you publish in is not so important, as long as you...

You sound like you're drunk or really really angry. – You never use wikipedia? You don't like it, don't trust it? Don't understand it? Fair enough. Millions do like it, understand it, use it, and millions love it. I do, and it certainly taught a lot of people to check whatever they read twice...

I start repeating myself: I have the highest esteem for any professional that is doing his job well. And I also stated before that I would NOT allow the masses to edit a Journalist's work. I wouldn't allow a hairdresser to fly a plane either. And I said it before as well: I absolutely mean point...

Of course I do. But identity theft is not such a problem if the registration process is strict enough: http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html In our project we have similar restrictions for user accounts. It's a lot of work in the beginning, but it saves a lot of nerves later on. Comments have...

Couldn't agree more. You misunderstand 2 points. In the model I suggest 1. Readers cannot edit journalist's articles. 2. Every contributor has to be identified with his real name. The newspaper wiki allows readers to write own articles though.

Exactly. Also smart: Allow transparent version control. Let users write articles. Interlink articles. Very stupid: Let users write anonymously into the editorial like the LA Times. BTW, here is another interesting better written 10 point-list on the same subject...

Wikipedia is not a scientific resource, but its entries are generally more informative and more up to date. Yes, it is inaccurate at times, but we know it - and compared to the Encyclopedia it doesn't have the appeal that it's infallible, which, by the way is more concerning than the fact that...

Look, I post under my own name. I am as open as I can. In here there is no use pimping my business in here, and there is no need pimping my business either. The comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica is an interesting controversial topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm...

What are you talking about? Interaction helps them improving their quality. They get feedback and learn to understand their readers. Readers get heard and contribute to the magazine. After all, there are incredibly smart people reading this magazine; the idea that the journalists are the...

Funny perception of things. I am not a sportsjournalist, so, of course I left the forum after the discussion dried out. And tool? Tool of whom or what? Anyway, in the mean time we launched our first wiki for a Swiss magazine. http://www.dasmagazin.ch DAS MAGAZIN (Engl. “The Magazine”) is...

I feel there is a lot of misunderstanding due to too much words and not enough pictures. I made an example of how the Washington Post would look like if it were a wiki designed after the 10 rules described in the article. You'll see that there is not a lot to be scared of, but a lot to look...

Instead of trying to put us in a corner, you should communicate with us new media guys. It would help your cause. That is basically what I am saying. There is no triumphalism involved when I say that new media is taking over. That is just technological progress. There is no triumphalism...