[Imc-alternatives] newswire vs. knowledge-base

[Jay]

Strypey,

To grab a part of your last e-mail and put it in its own thread....

>In my mind, there is a conflict between the traditional Indymedia news
>format and the encyclopedia format exemplified by sites like
>Wikipedia.org.
>
>Indymedia newswires and features, like blogs, are sorted primarily by
>chronology. Users mainly start at the homepage and digging into the
>timeline. The newest information is at the front/ top and is the
>easiest to access, although older material is archived and can be
>searched.
>
>In constast, sites like Wikipedia are sorted primarily by topic.
>Although there is a homepage with featured content, users mainly
>arrive on its pages through web searches or links from other sites.
>Information is aggregated under topic headings and once created, each
>page evolves over time.
>
>News-based infostructures are good for quickly documenting and
>reacting to current events. They produce content quickly and stimulate
>discussion and further research. But their speed of reaction tends to
>produce content that dates quickly. Facts are missing, misrepresented
>or just plain wrong. This means news content is less useful to a later
>reader than a more reflective article, or a wikipage sculpted over time.
>
>I have been working on the theory that the AlternativesIMC would be a
>knowledge-base - an encyclopedia rather than a newswire. I think this
>is because of the way the original alternatives feature was written
>and the fact that updating that feature was the first thing we did
>towards this project.
>
>But many of the sites in the list of socialforges we have aggregated
>on the wiki are already doing this. It seems to me that's what's
>missing is a place people can go to find out what these sites are and
>which site is most useful for what. A place people interested in
>alternatives can bounce ideas off others also interested in realising
>alternative projects.
>
>So it seems to me we have to decide between the importance of these
>two functions in the way we design the front page. Are we going to go
>with a traditional IMC format (imc list, features, solutions-wire),
>emphasising the alternatives news functions. Or are we going to
>emphasise the activist networking functions?

I've actually always viewed the alternatives site as both, and this 
is what would help give it power.  I still picture a front page with 
a top feature, that either an editorial collective or user-ratings 
would choose, and alternatives solutionwire running down the side of 
the page, with a list of categories somewhere on the page that would 
take the site user into our knowledge-base.

People come to "news" sites because they want to see what's happening 
now.  They refresh the site on their browser every few minutes in the 
hope that something new and exciting will appear.  Sometimes it does, 
often it doesn't, but that's what helps bring people in.  I still get 
excited when I open up my browser and there's a new top feature on 
the PhillyIMC page, even if I already know all about the event it's 
describing.

On the other hand, Indymedia sites have been pretty awful at 
developing a respository for accumulated knowledge, and that's 
something we've been talking here about changing.  I believe a 
wikipedia-style knowledge-base, perhaps developed by aggregating 
information from other "socialforges" or linking the informational 
area of several socialforge sites,  would be *essential* on our 
alternatives site, enabling people who really want to create 
alternatives to dig deep into the available information. learn how to 
do new things and empower themselves to act.

I think a solutionswire without a knowledge-base would be exciting 
but ephemeral.  A knowledge-base with no solutionswire would be fine 
but not much fun.  I envision two feeding off one another in a very 
special way.

Jay