How Long Should Articles Be Free and Accessible?

From Editors Weblog: ClickZ News reported last week that the Washpo has decided to keep articles free and out of their paid archive for 60 days, rather than 14 days as they had previously.

But consider this: 'Company executives point to the news operation's recent scoop regarding secret CIA prisons in foreign countries -- a story that has continued to generate links and buzz for weeks after its debut. "For us to take that article offline after 14 days really does us a disservice," Jim Brady, executive editor of the site, told ClickZ News.'

And after 60? Given the increasing need for news organizations to help readers by setting context, is 60 days long enough? What will happen to the archives (and business models) of papers that lock up articles that can be used as related links a month, or 6 months after the story ran?

If the CIA story stays hot and there's a new development in, say, March, will the Washpo benefit if the original story, the source of all subsequent journalism, isn't added as a related link?

Seigenthaler Controversy Shines a Spotlight on Accuracy

The whole episode involving John Seigenthaler's bio in Wikipedia and the public apology by the author of the fabricated copy has us wondering if folks talk about accuracy online only when a "big" source fumbles.

How many errors in blogs or on sites get corrected every day across the Internet? Hundreds, certainly, probably thousands, as readers send emails to writers, pointing out mistakes. But the buzz surrounding accuracy remains just that - a buzz - and never rises to the level of critical discourse until a New York Times or Wikipedia are the sources. And even then, the discussion lasts exactly the length of a news cycle and then dies.

We need more quantitative figures about accuracy and veracity online, at both big and small sites, for professionals and citizen journalists. How do we get this data?

The Real Impact of SSE?

Jeff Jarvis has us thinking and talking about SSE, the new two-way RSS technology just starting to be deployed.

Many of the commentators are wondering what its impact will be but seem to focus on the human aspects - how it will allow conversation and collaboration and comment.

But the real advance here might be at the machine level. As a news story is pushed out, the server can communicate via SSE with other SEE-enabled information sources and, via tagging, keyword, and concept recognition, set up-to-the-minute context: Wikipedia and blog entries, stock quotes, related stories in that publication or others, and (as Jarvis notes) such mundane capabilities such as spell-checking and simple copyediting.

Wil machines finally make editors obsolete? Or will reporters be freed from worrying about context so they can focus on reporting the news? (Just to be clear: Reporters of course need to know the context of any story - but there's no reason they should be spending time finding links to Web-resources, when a machine could do the first pass; reporters should, of course, check those links and improve on them if they can.)

Wikidisinformation

The New York Times had a story Sunday about John Seigenthaler Sr., former editor of The Tennessean and, according to his bio on Wikipedia, a suspected conspirator in the killing of not only President John F. Kennedy, but also his brother, Bobby.

That last bit is completely false, of course, but it was written so matter-of-factly that any reader would have assumed it was indeed fact. To say the least, Seigenthaler was not happy. He investigated a bit but, short of a lawsuit, which he didn't want to bother with, the poster's identity will remain secret.

The episode sheds light - again - on the accuracy and very truthfulness of anything one finds online...even from a now-respeceted source such as Wikipedia. The New Yorker cartoon from back in the day is still relevant: "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Or if your information is.

So where are newspapers' marketing departments? This is a huge opportunity for news organizations - I can picture banner ads online that read: "Really. What we print is really true. And really accurate."

Before you laugh and bring up Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, remember that the vast, vast majority of information and news produced by real news organizations is truthful and accurate. That can't be said for bloggers and other amateur Websites.

In fact, some university or think-tank could gather some good press by undertaking independent research and put numbers behind the accuracy and truthfulness or professional vs. amateur online information sources. That wouldn't be very hard to do.

Newspapers need to do many things, but they should absolutely be hammering home their most important remaining product advantage - reputation built on accuracy.