Got something to say? Then say it in satellite pictures.

It’s a nice idea with an implementation that delivers the output as you type.

Similar tools:

• Text to Church Sign Convertor
• ASCII Banner Generator
• Cyborg Name Generator
• Polaroid Images

Here is my first article in NewAssignment.net. The final version was polished and made more reader-friendly by David Cohn. Here is the initial essay (ramble-saturated draft as a matter of in fact) that was composed before further editing job.

On many levels, the process or collaboratively writing articles resembles the process of Open Source software development. Herein we investigate various aspects that demonstrate and exemplify the parallels between open-ended work on computer code, as well as on factual content which is controlled by a group.

1. Bug fixing in code equates to the process of peer review and fact checking in journalism

To use an example, Mozilla’s Bug-catching efforts are equivalent to fact checking. There are many similarities between these two processes. More eyeballs on the code (or articles) make bugs (or mistakes) shallow, to use Linus Torvalds’ famous statement.

2. Reuse and reproducibility of code versus exploration of content and public databases

With openness in mind, one is more interested in sharing. This leads to the idea of building upon prior or present work of others. That, as a matter of fact, is where the power of Open Source concepts and paradigms lies, particularly those which align with scientific motives (e.g. standing on the shoulders of giants to see further, to use Newton’s analogy). One of the strengths of Open Source-esque assemblage of information is that one can ‘massage’ content or code to better suit different purposes in different contexts.

3. Versioning, editions, fixes, patches, and corrections as spearate press releases

Open Source journalism opens the doors to, as well as encourages, versioning of content (revisions, changes, and rollbacks). Moreover, it can be passed among various minds, attracting more pairs of eyes which verify its validity. Consequently, material can be corrected before outrageous, inflammatory or errorenous information gets published. Once again, the argument revolves around peer moderation and review. Open Source is renowned for being a quick and reliable method for assessing work, thereby providing an almost-immediate quality assurance.

4. Expansion; no privatisation or ‘commoditisation’

Content which is open is available for extension since ownership becomes a ‘fluid’, so to speak, territory. Creative Commons licenses, for example, permit and accommodate derivative work with various defensive exceptions. It becomes a case where the “one-size-fits-all” myth is broken. Different authors and audiences seek accurate information with a different slant.

5. Code similarity, duplicability and linking

Popularisation and wealth of hyperlinks on the Web rids authors from this laborious need for dynamic references which are detailed, cluttered, and difficult to follow. Links obviate the need to repeat. With the vast size of the Web, however, concern also emerge with regards to reliability of information. On the other hand, the ability to follow links at ease makes it less necessary to reiterations that serve the reader the ‘leg work’. Similar information can be merged, inter/cross-linked and knowledge is thus forged to become more cohesive and centralised. Excess due to duplicability is the motivator to gathering information in a single place which—in turn—enables more eyes to view and correct mistakes. It is hardly surprising that collaboration and unification (much like standardisation) benefit all by improving the eventual outcome. These prevent waste, as well as reinventions and incarnations of the same wheel.

6. Monetised model — donate on investigations that appeal to you

Independence for the writer is analogous to the freedom of a freelance software developer. Financial interests can often be curtailed (albeit not necessarily so).

7. Recognition as motivator, money secondary factor

It is no secret that many reporters are overworked and underpaid. The reason for persistence, however, is often genuine interest, true personal involvement, and impact. The same can sometimes be said about software developers who seek to fulfil a goal, overcome perils, and address personal pet peeves. Satisfaction comes from a self-tailored product, be it an article or software. Eric Raymond calls this phenomenon “scratch-itching” software where each member of the development group addresses his/her own needed and desires. Ultimately, the requirements of the entire team provides the perfect software package which everyone is pleased with. Put differently, on average, its optimality corresponds to the involved group.

8. Audience judges and substantiates popularity, but quantity does not lead to higher cost of production

One of the key observation to make is that the cost of manufacturing an electronic code (text/information) are merely inexistent. They involve no physical raw material. Let us consider and set aside the exception: information is environment-friendly only if you neglect energy which only sometimes (e.g. random-access memory) persistently retains information and, in itself, requires combustion of material. A tiered Web (and the end of Net neutrality) could soon change this perception however.

Unlike the production of a paid of shoes, for example, replicating code (programs) is a money-independent process. It is only research and development that counts. Likewise, in electronic journalism, it is the effort of the group (e.g. time spent) that counts while no paper needs to be produced. Bandwidth limits aside, a successful story can reach a wide audience and received a lot of feedback (including corrections) without elevating any production/delivery costs.

9. Authorship/credit

It is a known fact that people’s own code (or product of composition) becomes their ‘baby’. With Open Source models, there remains an electronic trail which indicate who contributed which part of an article or program (e.g. SVN, CVS for version control). Thus, credit can be given to the rightful person or mistakes be traced back to the culprit — the one guilty of erroneous inclusions).

10. Editorial control, personal writing style/unification

Consistency is an important aspect of paper-based publications and code alike. It is important not to duplicate effort (e.g. similar/identical articles or multiple functions which achieve a similar goal). There needs to be supervision that relies on knowledge that is applied in a top-down direction.

In summary, there are several characteristics to Open Source software development which define and promote the concept of Open Source journalism. Key virtures that are sought by journalists can be backed by successful, established, and well-proven overlaps in software.

I have also put together a short bio for the site (mildly edited).

Bio: Roy Schestowitz is a Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics at Manchester University. While on the verge of completion he finds himself fascinated by endless possibilities which the World Wide Web offers; consequently, he often gets distracted and sidetracked. He advocates the use of Open Source technology in the public and private sector, as well as uses his background in computing to make personal contribution to the Free Software movement. In his spare time he engages in activities ranging from weights-related sports to easy-listening music.

Click to enlarge the image

Google Earth/Maps finally go back further into history. That’s right. There’s a notion of time now, according to various press releases.

Google added historic map overlays to its free interactive online globe of the world to provide views of how places have changed with time.

How long will it be before their rivals imitate (or ‘innovate’, as they call it)? To be fair, it’s all about data gathering, so there is no genuine thinking involved.

It has been long weeks since I promised that I would publish my short interview with a Wired Magazine reporter. So finally, here it is:

Opening Question

Are sites like Digg and Netscape threatening the job of editors the way blogs have threatened reporters?

These are most definitely a threat. Anyone who denies that is, well….. in denial. Academically-speaking, peer-reviewed content suffers in quite the same way, primarily due to CiteSeer et al (publication farms) and the “just Google it” culture. I have had elaborate discussions with colleagues about this…

Interview

First, can I get some background on you. How old are you, where do you live and what do you do? One thing I want to convey is the every-dayness of contributors. I want readers to understand that people in their 20′s are able to manipulate as much web traffic as the New York Times’ editor.

I am a 24-year-old Ph.D. student from Manchester University. I have been studying here since I was 18 and I am amidst graduation (the viva). My daily routine has changed significantly in the past year. From being a (or “just another”) blogger I soon became a highly involved contributer in forums (technical newsgroups and mailing lists in particular). As time went by I found myself infatuated. A new phenomenon emerged, which offered access to a large audience. That was the point when I joined Digg. I was soon heavily (albeit not always happily) entangled. The longer I was there, the more influence I had. I was able to drive traffic to articles that appealed to me. I was even contacted by people whose site I had ‘Dugg’. The loveaffair continued as the momentum was there; there was something charming and addictive about it.

I am going to talk to some people about how they approach Digging, but I wanted to ask you more about how you approach being a Netscape Navigator. I, of course, am unfamiliar with your duties. How is it different from when you were a free contributor to Digg? Does it feel different because you are getting paid?

So… I shall assume that your input from Diggers obviates the need for me to deliver information about that side of the fence.

In Netscape, our duties involve the delivery of at least 5 submissions per day (on average). I personally exceed that by a factor of ~6, which means that votes, owing to their distributions, get ‘diluted’. Beyond the contribution of content, there are no commitments or responsibilities that are mandated with an iron fist. In fact, the atmosphere is very nice as the bosses are lenient. The ambition comes from within rather than from above. Commitment for the site is a driving force. We have some lively mailing lists ‘at the back’ and we attempt to find and intercept spam submissions using some rudimentary tools. There is an increasing number of so-called ‘clans’ or ‘sock puppets’ that try to game the system.

More importantly — social bookmarking in total (digg, redit, netscape etc,): Do you feel your role as a “Top Digger” or “Netscape Navigator” give you a certain amount of power over web traffic? Is that a safe power for anyone to have? How do you think that relates to the control of a traditional newspaper editor?

As a Navigator, there is definitely a certain power that comes from the number and quality of one’s submissions. Recognition helps too and Navigators have the advantage of having their avatars appear in many places. And that certainly gives additional control over Web traffic. I hope this addresses your question.

The power is safe to have as long as the user/contributer (mind the subtle difference in terminology) can be trusted. Bear in mind that people’s submissions reflect on their passions and beliefs. In a political context this has led to some friction. I can’t attest to the experience of an editor in the press. However, be aware that there is no master mind (editor in chief), neither do we have real moderation or balancing mechanism (an ongoing issue to address). Supervisions appears to be minimal or very sporadic/selective.

Important point to add: social networks are driven by votes, so prominent content is being determined by the minds of the readers, whether it’s correct or not, whether it’s balanced or not. Social networks should always raise skepticism, so an outsider must never trust them. Social networks can be clannish and they can repel a certain crown while being a magnet to another. Digg, for example, is being transformed into an Apple turf, among other topics for which member have a passion.

Followup questions

1. Do you consider social bookmarking a new type of profesion? If so, how do you define it, what skills are involved?

Social bookmarking is, judging by my own perception, a contribution that enjoys a symbiotic relationship with one’s passion and interests. In many cases it can be a residue of one’s browsing habits; it has a (financial) reward bound to it as well.

The skills involved are few and the ‘entry barrier’ is, in general, very low. This does not necessarily indicate that there is motivation for dumbing-down of content. As short snippets bound to links are no longer a sin per se, there is this danger that journalism, attributions, and sources will be redefined.

2. Have you or anybody else ever recieved offers to get paid to submit a specific link? I’m getting the impression that this is not unheard of.

No, I was never approached with such an offer. I have, on the other, recently become aware of sites that encourage manipulation of content. This is worrisome.

3. Is this a good way for people to get their news: Is it as informative as a regular newspaper?

As I previously said, social networks and sites that represent a certain clique are bound to have bias. It’s seems inevitable that corruption and spamming will become more widespread and less detectable, too. That said, newspaper are no exception, albeit they are more closely regulated and artificially-balanced/moderated. Take the following as an example.

Bill Gates lends cash to buy newspapers

$350 million to MediaNews

Gates involvement has been very behind the scenes. In fact many of those involved in the deal didn’teven know he was one of the investors. It was carried out through the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy outfit.

Source

The following story has caught my eye.

“For reasons such as this, Maeda is now a “repentant” technowhiz and a leading apostle of simplicity. In 2004 he founded the MIT Simplicity Consortium at the Media Lab, which works with major corporations to design technologies for simplicity-driven products.”

E have probably all become familiar with Open Source software. The Open Source concept has extended its reach to what can only be described as remotely sensible areas of life. Take, for example, Open Source beer, an Open Source Cola drink recipe (PDF warning) and… Open Source journalism.

Inevitably, journalism will go online. Nobody denies this fact. The press as we know it must evolve to take advantage of new informartion delivery systems—those which facilitate collaboration. Yes, with the Internet, collaboration is finally facilitated and feedback can be obtained and made public in real time. Blogs exemplify this whilst their rising popularity (readership) makes traditional publishers nervous.

An article I read on the WSJ over a year ago stated something like “Journalists and newspaper publishers come to realisethat all rivers run dry”. This was said in reference to advertisements, audience, classifieds, etc. The quote to stress here is: “evolve or die”. Open Source journalism is about adaptation to change, which keeps things competitive and gains avid readers. These readers usuaully appreciate the added value of comments and TalkBacks (like the ones you would find in ZDNet and C|Net). There’s a two-way pipe that prevents the reader from being muted.

I have a little announcement to make: I joined NewAssignment.net a couple of weeks ago. This site is committed to leading the way as it explores a new paradigm for journalism. Trailblazer it might not necessarily be, but many eyes are watching the concept of Open Source journalism as it stands in practice. My active (and visible) participation appears imminent and I truly look froward to it. I don’t know yet if I’ll be premitted to dump copies of the material submitted there onto my blog (much like Matt Asay, whose writeups on Open Source I always enjoy, does in InfoWorld. I noticed that he also changes the title for SEO-related advantages).

My heavy involvement in social bookmarking sites such as Digg.com and Netscape.com seems to have paid off. Social bookmarking is one thing that enriched my life tremendously. My participation in Netscape has had people sign up merely to leave a comment on something I had submitted. Mailing lists as a form of communication is another thing which, along with newsgroups, has opened many doors. I recently received a thank-you from Red Hat for defending them in the Microsoft/Novell mess.

IEBOLD machines—or more generally—closed-source E-voting remain problematic. There must be transparency for trust and validation. A standard, old-fashioned and paper-based election has the whole protocols recorded, so votes involve supervision and public understanding. Likewise, algorithms should be made public. The public can then spot bug and make suggestions (patches) until the code is bug free and can be trusted. Is there any ‘paper trail’? If so, how is it encoded? Proprietary formats? Many question clearly arise.