Echoing the slow food movement, Lloyd has a post today in favour of "slow news":
"I think this “slow news” idea is one reason why Wikipedia’s coverage of
news events is often so attractive. Firstly, Wikipedia provides a
single and persistent URL around a story (which newspapers sites often,
notably, do not do). Then that page starts to develop and
grow. Information starts to attach itself to the URL. The page’s
informational value increases at least partly because it’s a single page. And, of course, because of the nature of Wikipedia the “maintenance” question comes pre-answered."
I think that's spot on, though I'd add one more point. Wikipedia is such a good news source because it only behaves as a new source when there's actual news going on. Pages change rapidly as events change - they stay still when nothing's going on. Contrast that with the 24-hour TV news hole that has to be filled with something, and the improbability that enough things happen every day to make it worth devoting a whole channel to them. Sure, we needed constant rolling news updates for about 48 hours straight during 9/11 and 7/7. Since then? Not so much.
I toy occasionally with the idea of a news service that markets itself as providing "news only when there is any". That's essentially what you get from Wikipedia. Slow news. News when (not "as") it happens.
Update: by a happy coincidence Mathew Ingram points to a new report claiming that Wikipedia (and Facebook) are better at getting breaking news out in emergencies, citing the Virginia Tech shootings
Recent Comments