This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

JournalismTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale. InternetHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theInternet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Internet cultureTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofinternet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests :View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article fromhere orhere Photo :Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are locatedhere Other :Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to getYouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See alsoCategory:Internet culture articles needing attention

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Surhone, L. M., Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F. (2010),Online journalism: California Watch, citizen journalism, collaborative journalism, Betascript publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 715318997,ISBN 9786133422322.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between9 January 2020 and18 April 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Hewtay.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between2 April 2020 and20 June 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Natali3.Aguil4r.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between13 October 2020 and4 December 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Idgibb.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Peer reviewers:ItsJodach96.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this article here from "participatory journalism" because the term "citizen journalism" seems to be somewhat more common. Just now I did Google searches for the terms "public journalism" (34,700 hits), "participatory journalism" (31,600 hits) and "citizen journalism" (45,000 hits). I see that there is a separate article for "public journalism" on Wikipedia. Since that article's content is very similar to the content of this article, I'll fold it into this one and leave a redirect. --Sheldon Rampton 19:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what either of these articles were before. But this article now conflates two things that aren't the same.

• "Citizen journalism" or "participatory journalism" is roughly what is done by ordinary people, or people who aren't professional journalists.
• There are varying views of what constitutes "public journalism" or "civic journalism", but all of them refer to professional journalists.Maurreen 03:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The conflation to which you refer already existed in the "public journalism" article before I started editing, as you can see for yourself if you checkits history. I agree that there is a conceptual difference between "journalism BY the people" and "journalism FOR the people," and I agree furthermore that the term "public journalism"originated in reference to the latter. However, in recent usage the term has come to encompass both meanings. (See, for example, Leonard Witt's essay, "Is Public Journalism Morphing into the Public's Journalism?"[1] I have no objection to creating a separate article for "public" vs. "participatory" if you choose to do so and if the distinction you're making can be maintained between the two articles. On balance, however, I think it would be better to have a single article, with some rewriting of the history section to incorporate the point you're making. --Sheldon Rampton 07:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want to keep it as one article, how about we call it "Public journalism"? I think that's a broader expression.Maurreen 08:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Umm, never mind. On further thought, the article doesn't have enough about regular journalists to make changing the title a good idea.

But I will tweak the history section along the lines you suggest.Maurreen 08:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just done some tweaking myself along those lines. As for whether it should be called "public" journalism vs. "citizen" journalism, I don't care much as long as there are redirects so that Wikipedia users can find the article by entering any of the terms that refer to it. I chose "citizen" journalism because it seems to be the most commonly used, judging from my Google search. --Sheldon Rampton 08:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like what you did with the history section. I've tweaked the intro to give more distinction between the two. See what you think.Maurreen 17:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to second the original suggestion that perhaps this needs to be two articles. "Public" or "civic" journalism -- meaning that civic-values infused brand of political journalism -- is a very different thing than "citizen journalism," even if the two are maybe (only maybe!) converging. This comes up for me because I just recently created a stub onBuzz Merritt, who's considered one of the fathers of public/civic journalism, and the term "public journalism" is linked -- but it redirects here, to an article that starts off talking about journalism by non-journalists, with which Buzz Merritt has nothing to do. Would there be any objection to dividing these articles? Or maybe just duplicating the relevant portions of this article under the heading "public journalism"? Could also do it under "civic journalism" and turn "public journalism" into a disambiguation page.Lobosolo02:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually writing an article on the similaraties and differences between "public" and particpatory" journalism with reference to their understanding of key sociological concepts of "civil society" and the "public sphere." When finished I'll be happy to link it. For now, I think this is a fascinating discussion ...69.22.250.4816:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Chris Anderson[2][reply]

I removed the following statement:

"A more critical definition of civic journalism describes it as a deliberate effort by social-activist journalists to structure their reporting so as to elicit the desired reader reaction, by emphasizing those parts of the story which fit their ideological template and ignoring facts and quotations which don't. Thus, a story on local schools might include the Superintendent's pre-bond-vote statement that "we're terribly overcrowded" but would exclude readily available data from a State Education Department showing capacity exceeding enrollments."

This statement needs a reference or source.Dr. Cash00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the other forms of journalism which citizen journalism is supposedly not have not been referenced. This is problematic given that they are being defined.Hewtay (talk)04:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great page. I think we'll be hearing a lot more about citizen journalism in the not so distant future, especially as students, academics, and people in general begin to debunk the "objectivity myth" in mainstream journalism. This is what has been going on within different subcultures for years, perhaps not initiated by, but certainly fueled by, Jello Biafra's call to "Become the Media". The importance of doing so extends well beyond the punk rock scene. In the last few years we have seen that we can get a copy of IMC's newspapers in almost every major city we visit and we can see what other citizen journalists are doing and witnessing around the world. In fact, in many instances, I have found myself cross referencing articles from independent media sources with mainstream publications to get a feel of what the "real story" is.

One of the groups we should look out for is Common Language Project (www.commonlanguageproject.net). This would be a useful link to the CJ page of Wikipedia. They are citizen journalists who have taken to globetrotting in order to find stories that the mainstream doesn't print, from places that are either underreported or only reported in a neagative sense. Much of what they report is about small, extra-institutional and participaory grassroots work going on in places most of America sees as "backwards" or "dangerous". Their website is slowly becoming a source for people who want to know what is going on in underreported areas as well as a place for "citizen journalists" to write about things they've seen and experienced that don't seem to be getting any media attention. It's up and coming, they are very committed to their mission. Check them out, maybe post an external link. I'm sure lots of Wikipedi-ites would have something to contribute.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.45.67.209 (talk •contribs)15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section of this article is quite long, and is beginning to look like a linkfarm. It appears that everyone that runs a site that even vaguely can be classified as a 'citizen journalism' site is adding a link here.

We really need to trim this section in accordance with the policies and guidelines specific inWP:EL. I've tried to find an equivalent category on theOpen Directory Project (dmoz.org), but have not had much luck. Does anyone have any better ideas?Dr. Cash16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a better link to the dmoz.org site for news blogs and such. I removed the directory listing of citizen journalism sites, leaving only general educational sites dealing with the overall topic of citizen journalism, and left the following note (invisible unless editing) to editors in the 'external links' section:

This list is for the listing of umbrella organization type sites or sites dealing with the overall topic and area of citizen journalism. It is NOT for a directory listing of citizen journalism sites or blogs. If you add such a site to this list, it will be removed without notification.

Please readWP:EL for wikipedia's official guidelines and policies regarding external links, and post suggested links to this article's TALK PAGE before adding them to the list.

Examples and directory listings of citizen journalism sites may be added to the open directory project site (dmoz.org), listed as the first entry in this list.

Dr. Cash17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the link to the dmoz.org site is a rather loose list of blogs, which doesn't include many of the local citizen journalism websites that were formerly listed with this article. I've taken that list and created a page for it on my wiki, SourceWatch, which has a less restrictive policy about including external links than Wikipedia, and I've added a link to the SourceWatch list to this article. Hopefully that solution will work for everyone. --Sheldon Rampton09:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add Journalism Hope blog - where I concentrate on my personal experiences with Citizen Journalism in the Midwest. Thought I'd check here before adding the link, though. Thanks. -kpaul70.236.25.14919:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please readWP:EL, which covers the types of links which are acceptable to include or not. Links to sites that you own or maintain, as well as blogs and other social networking sites, are generally unacceptable. Particularly if your purpose of adding a link to the site is to drive traffic to it, that would be unacceptable.Dr. Cash22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's relevant (as some of the other blogs on the list), but I guess I have to wait until someone 'nominates' it to the list of links? The reason for adding it is that I run a citizen journalism venture in the Midwest and Journalism Hope (http://www.journalismhope.com) records my experiences and thoughts on Citizen Journalism. I guess I'll just wait to see if someone else adds it. ;) Thanks again.Kpaul.mallasch23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding how a comprehensive account of a real-world example of citizen journalism in action is not worthy of a link. Is it because it is a blog post? I understand it's Wikipedia policy to avoid linking to blogs, but that seems rather heavy handed. Is it because my blog is a "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"? Even if my blog were such a site, the blog post in question (http://www.e-strategyblog.com/2007/08/minneapolis-bri.html) is directly related to the topic of this page. Is is simply because I do Internet marketing and you think I'm trying to drive traffic? I don't need it and I don't particularly care if I get a link to my post or not. I'm just baffled why my post is not relevant and more than a little amused that a citizen journalist trying to contribute a relevant and valuable piece of citizen journalism about citizen journalism to a Wikipedia page on the topic of citizen journalism doesn't qualify. :-)Estrategycom 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm building a page on SourceWatch (a non-Wikipedia wiki) for listing some of the toptools for citizen journalism. I would have added it to Wikipedia, but since it will contain a lot of external links, it might not be considered appropriate here. If anyone here would care to contribute content, I'd welcome your participation. Right now there isn't a good single resource on the internet where people can find help in getting set up as a citizen journalist, and I'm hoping this page can fill that need. --Sheldon Rampton04:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. The listings of links to citizen journalism sites were removed since everyone on the planet was adding links to their own sites and calling them, 'citizen journalism' sites just to get a link added, which violatesWP:EL. Simply putting the list on another semi-wiki site doesn't solve the problem, and in fact, only makes it worse. Plus, by creating a separate page on another wiki site with 'tools for citizen journalism', you've really found a really weaselish way of getting around wikipedia'sno original research policy, not to mention directly violatingWP:EL by adding links to sites/pages that you created.Dr. Cash17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm involved with SourceWatch, I'll defer to the judgment of others on the question of whether this Wikipedia article should link to it. You've pointed out that it was a violation ofWP:EL for me to add a link to a site that I created, and I realize upon consideration that you were right. Sorry, my bad. However, I'd like to respond to a few of your statements:

• SourceWatch is not a "semi-wiki." It runs on the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia itself. We have a somewhat different mission and editorial policy, but if we're a "semi-wiki," so is Wikipedia.
• I can see how you might think putting the list of citizen journalism sites on a different wiki "doesn't solve the problem" of linkspamming, but I don't see how it makes the problemworse. I think in some ways itdoes help solve the problem, or at least reduce it. SourceWatch is a smaller wiki than Wikipedia, which therefore reduces the incentive for "everyone on the planet" to want to add a link there.
• Although I accept your judgment that it was a violation ofWP:EL for me to add a link to my own site, I don't see how it could be construed asoriginal research. Simply creating a list of things is not "original research," which the Wikipedia policy defines as "arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'" If simply creating a list meets this definition, there are quite a few articles on Wikipedia that need to be altered or deleted. (For example, the article onmethod acting includes a list of method actors.)
• Wikipedia's policies exist to help make the encyclopedia better, and I think that many people would find it useful if they could use the citizen journalism article to find examples of citizen journalism websites and tools for actually doing citizen journalism. Last week, I attended the "journalism unconference" thatDan Gillmor organized at the end of Wikimania 2006. One of the speakers there was Lisa Williams, who runsH2OTown, a citizen journalism site based in Watertown, MA. She has also been trying to compile a comprehensive list of local citizen journalism sites and has already found more than 300. Her list is not yet available online, but when it does become available, I think this article should link to it. It would certainly be an improvement over this article's current link toOpen Directory's list of weblogs, which is a much worse example of "linkspam" than the relatively short and on-topic list that accumulated in this article and that I moved to SourceWatch after it was deleted here. It seems paradoxical that the policy you're enforcingallows linking to a list of irrelevancies such asMoronWatch,ReaganEraChild andStickyBuffalo, while excluding a better-quality list to on-topic information that readers of this article can find useful.

To sum up: I don't particularly care whether this article links to SourceWatch or not, but somehow it ought to help people find thosetypes of resources. --Sheldon Rampton04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) as far as the original research is going, I was referring not to the initial list, but actually tothis page, which, while it is generally a list, goes a little further than just providing a list of sites/links.

(b) it is simply not wikipedia's job to either provide links to websites of citizen journalism or to tell people how to create a site such as this. It's an encyclopedia, it should provide information about the topic.

The biggest problem I have with the whole 'citizen journalism' thing is that it's not really 'journalism' at all. Basically ANYONE on the planet can put up a website, and more and more people have been putting up blogs to preach their own point of view while really having no experience or knowledge on the subject they're talking about. Granted, they have the right to post what they want (just as I have the right to read or not to read what they put up), but using the word 'journalism' to describe it is really an insult to journalists.Dr. Cash05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your point (a), "going a little further than just providing a list" still does not come anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia's definition of original research. You're stretching here. Moreover, you haven't addressed the fact that your edits to this article have effectively prevented inclusion of a reasonably good list of examples of citizen journalism, while inserting instead a reallycrappy list of examples of websites that aren't citizen journalism at all but just randomly-selected blogs. There is a difference between "blogging" and "citizen journalism," but yourOpen Directory link ignores this distinction.

With regard to your point (b), lots of Wikipedia articles have links to lists of examples of the topic in question. That's not linkspam, it's part of providing information about the topic. Likewise, lots of Wikipedia articles "tell people how" to do the activity described in the article. For example, much of thechess article consists of information about how to play chess, and it includes an article in the external links section titledHow to Play Chess.

Your final paragraph about the "problem I have with the whole 'citizen journalism' thing" reveals a lot about your point of view. Apparently you don't want this article to provide information about how to do citizen journalism because you are hostile to the idea that it should be done at all. You're entitled to your point of view, and it even deserves inclusion in this article, but you need to recognize that your point of view is not universally shared, and you therefore need to avoid pushing it to the exclusion of other points of view. I, for one, disagree with you. While it is true that some examples of citizen journalism are of poor quality, there are also some high-quality examples, and many respected professional journalists - some of whom are mentioned in this article - would strongly disagree with your notion that citizen journalism somehow insults professional journalists. Even if we accept your premise that citizen journalism is of lower quality than professional journalism, your argument is absurd. Are amateur tennis players somehow "insulting" to Amelie Mauresmo and Roger Federer?

As a final observation: If you truly believe what you have written above, you should not be participating in Wikipedia, since everything you have said by way of criticizing citizen journalism can also be said about Wikipedia: "Basically ANYONE ;) on the planet can edit an article, and more and more people have been putting up articles while really having no experience or knowledge on the subject they're talking about. Granted, they have the right to post what they want (just as I have the right to read or not to read what they put up), but using the word 'encyclopedia' to describe it is really an insult to encylopedias." --Sheldon Rampton06:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. That's not correct. 'Citizen journalism' = 'blog', nothing more. The whole article probably ought to be merged with theblog article and redirected to begin with. Comparing this to wikipedia is a farse, too. Wikipedia has a far more extensive online community as well as guidelines and rules with an extensive set of administrators to enforce its rules. Of course, the biggest 'weakness' of wikipedia is that there are a lot of users that probably shouldn't be here that want to use the site as their own personal soapbox, or blog, and enforcing this is becoming a problem (no, I'm not accusing you). The vast majority of 'citizen journalism' sites and blogs that I've seen do not have this -- they're run by one or two people that have decided to pony up the money for a domain name to provide a forum for their [rather esoteric] point of view (which is fine as far as the first amendment is concerned, but they really shouldn't be calling themselves a 'news' site -- they're really just putting up editorials).Dr. Cash17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. There is a clear difference between citizen journalism and blogs. Some blogs fit the category of citizen journallism, and some do not. For example,here is the blog of a teenage girl in Iraq that consists of little more than postings of photographs of cute kittens. It's a cute blog, but no one would pretend that it is journalism. On the other hand, websites such asH2OTown orOhMyNews orBack to Iraq clearlyare doing journalism. Moreover, some examples of citizen journalism are clearly not blogs at all. OhMyNews is not a blog. Neither areScoopt andSpyMedia, two websites that let people upload their photos for possible sale to traditional journalistic outlets. MSNBC'sCitizen journalism report, which accepts submissions from citizen journalists, is not a blog either. Nor isWikinews. The reality is that the internet is creating new forms of journalism, some of which are hybrids between old and new systems, and many of which are not blogs at all. --Sheldon Rampton20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be missing my point. Yes, not all blogs are citizen journalism sites. Blogs are the greater category. Citizen journalism sites fit within the larger category of blogs. Not all blogs are news/editorial-related.Dr. Cash21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missingmy point. Citizen journalism is not a subset of blogging, as I made very clear above. There are a number of forms of citizen journalism that are not blogs at all. I listed some of them above: OhMyNews, Scoopt, Wikinews, MSNBC. Here is the link to anessay for the Poynter Institute by Steve Outing, in which he describes 11 different forms of citizen journalism, the majority of which do not involve blogging. There is some overlap between blogging and citizen journalism, but they are two different concepts and categories, and neither is a subset of the other. --Sheldon Rampton21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after review, I stand corrected. Perhaps thePoynter article should be listed in the references section, since it goes a long way into defining what this concept is. I see that citizen journalism is a bit more than a simple blog. I've reinstated the link to the citizen journalism websites on SourceWatch. Readers that want their sites on some kind of list, should probably go and add their sites to that list instead (we still have to keep this article as an ARTICLE, not a collection of links, so that's why I didn't reinstated the previous list, which got way too long). The link to the tools for citizen journalism sites is also notable, though we can't really add that to this article because it would beoriginal research, and giving people tools for creating sites is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. However, it does not violate theWP:OR policy to link to sites that are original research, and we can link to sites that do have tools for creating these sites. That's fine.Dr. Cash04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Building on what Dr. Cash has mentioned. I think that a section should be aded to the article listing tools for citizen journalism. Web 2.0 applications likeUshahidi or Crowdmap should be listed somewhere in this article and a new section would probably be a good place to put it. I'm open to thoughts on the subject. (Information-meister (talk)18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The following article:[3]

...links it's reference to "citizen journalism" to this page. Should this be noted on the top of the Talk page?63.21.87.5715:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template for adding information about when a media source cites a wiki article to the talk page (onlinesource2004, but this is specific for2004, not the current year. Not sure why it's just for that year?Dr. Cash18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, a link was added toGroundReport. This new article appears to be spam advertising a run-of-the-mill commercial blog site funded by advertisements,with a future launch date!', and is in violation of Wikipedia policy against advertising. Please seeWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GroundReport. --Bhuston12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Grubisich follow-up article. Should have talked about it first here? If so, I apologize. I'm still learning the ropes, so to speak. Thanks. --Kpaul.mallasch21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information expanding on what is meant by citizen journalism. The information can, and probably should, be integrated into the rest of the article with some minor restructuring. As this is the first change I've made, I didn't want to muck around with an article that is already very good. Please feel free to chop up what I added and move it in the correct places. --Finious04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is excellent. Instead of referring to youtube.com you should refer to theyoutube article in Wikipedia. Your many web references are excellent and if you put them (or someone else) incite web template format all the better. You can see examples in the article. Anyways, thanks. This article is important. -BiancaOfHell07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful advice. This is my first contribution, so I am still learning. I'll go through and correct the citations (unless someone else beats me to it). --Finious21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a natural follow-up to the preceding discussion, it appeared to me that a brief discussion of the legal implications of citizen journalism would be appropriate.

Bob Casale15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good addition. It's unsourced but this article is accumulating facts at the moment. Eventually someone will probably fix her up.-BiancaOfHell15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone proposed in January 2007 thatSocial news be merged into this article. There seems to have been no subsequent discussion and nobody has carried out the merger. I've now removed the mergefrom-template since I don't agree with the idea and the proposal seems to be stillborn. —Ksero07:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the entire article, but the following paragraph jumped out at me:

"The time is fast approaching when these legal lines will have to be drawn. In recent times, bloggers have broken too many stories of national interest that mainstream media either overlooked, or decided against reporting, not to be considered legitimate news gatherers and reporters."

This is clearly opinion and not fact (however much I may agree). It needs a good rewrite (or removal) -dcljr(talk) 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) ... Oh, or a source. But even then, I think it would still need to be rewritten. -dcljr(talk)05:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the term "citizen journalism" has become common, is now much more popular than "public journalism." Some (many I know) writers and bloggers are expatriates, ergo not "citizens" of the country where they live. Does anyone know if and how this point has been addressed? cheersRomaC (talk)08:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this comparison with some others, and where I see a clear distinction (apples and oranges, you could say) they see two of the same fruit. Where citizen journalism takes place whenever a individual reports or expresses a journalistic opinion (blogs,youtube, CNN'siReport),democratic journalism involves the public taking in verifiable sources and ranking them by importance or interest (alaFark,Digg, etc.). Does citizen journalism (as defined on this page) cover both interpretations, or is democratic journalism a different fruit?Justin401 (talk)19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Like the same fruit to me. There may not be a big difference. If all democratic journalists do is rank pages, then they also engage in what citizen journalists do as part of their activities. I think theDemocratic journalism page needs a better definition if you ask me, and it needs better examples. The Concept is fuzzy.Morgonio (talk)06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different fruit. A citizen journalist engages in journalism, at whatever level of effectiveness, bias, or proficiency. A democratic journalist primarily engages in voting, and almost exclusively inapproval voting at that. Furthermore, democratic journalism is highly susceptible to bias attacks, so as a class is highly suspect. -Amgine (talk)16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the differences between citizen journalism and democratic journalism, I am thinking of adding in the two theories of citizenship under a new heading. The two theories consist of citizenshipfor journalism and citizenshipas journalism with reference to Melissa Wall's article "Citizenship Journalism" from Digital Journalism.Frmjenn (talk)16:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the History paragraph:Sunday Oliseh? The football player?—Precedingunsigned comment added by89.97.35.71 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) by: Jamailah Joy Panganiban Lopez—Precedingunsigned comment added by112.201.237.141 (talk)08:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... that the wikipedia entry on 'Citizen Journalism' is one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia. --209.195.82.34 (talk)13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no kidding.... what a mess. But there's only one way it's going to get fixed, and it's not by hanging out on the talk page and complaining.

To that end: I'm going to delete the entire "Supporting citizen journalism" section; it reads like an opinion piece in the Sunday paper, not a Wikipedia article.Accedie^{talk to me}22:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after performing copy edits.Khballin (talk)02:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's thoughts on shortening/tightening up the article's intro section? It's too long and overwhelms the reader before they have a chance to explore the rest of the article. Perhaps some of the content could be moved to other sections?Jodayagi (talk)17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "long" intro is justified in this case, as this is a sensitive concept. It's important to present definition and pros-cons postures right from the beginning, as it is. Actually, I think the article quality is quite high in general (47 references!), somebody could remove the "multiple issues" template.--Floit (talk)08:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Campbell (2015) Theorizing Citizenship in Citizen Journalism, Digital Journalism, 3:5, 704-719, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2014.937150

Melissa Wall (2015) Citizen Journalism, Digital Journalism, 3:6, 797-813, DOI:10.1080/21670811.2014.1002513

Frmjenn (talk)16:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I wanted to add to the criticisms of citizen journalism. Specifically, I wanted to include some information I have on this subject regarding the amount of work that traditional journalist are having to conduct in order to compete with citizen journalism. I think this topic would be beneficial to add to this article as is makes a connection with traditional journalism and citizen journalism.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNicholeC (talk •contribs)19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of citizen journalism has changed over time and with the technological improvements, the world is always making, this concept is always going to be dynamic. Tying into the history of citizen journalism, this section could discuss how the concept has changed over time with the introduction of technologies such as smartphones, the internet and social media platforms that exist on these. To remain objective to the topic, this section could refer to Natalie Fentons article, Allan, Stuart, and Natalie Fenton. The Routledge Companion To News And Journalism. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2012. Print. This article identifies the positives, "Reinvigorated Democracy" and negatives, "Depression of Democracy, of citizen journalism. Another area this section could touch on is where the future is headed with citizen journalism and what foreseeable changes could happen due to current technological trends, (example: Virtual Reality).ItsJodach96 (talk)23:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the sources I was thinking of using the advance this article.

Fenton, N. "News in the Digital Age," in Routledge Companion to News & Journalism, Pages-557-567

Harcup--Alternative Journalism as Active Citizenship— Precedingunsigned comment added byNicholeC (talk •contribs)23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onCitizen journalism. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20150809060425/http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060223904.php tohttp://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060223904.php
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20150809060425/http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060223904.php tohttp://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060223904.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)06:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some thoughts as to how the entire article ought to be recast.

Journalism is aprofession,a vocation founded upon specialized educational training. Becoming a "citizen journalist" is a matter ofmimicking some aspects of what a journalist does. There is no training, let alone formal education.

The termcitizen journalist has as much validity as (for example)citizen surgeon orcitizen police officer. That is to say, someone who simply dons the mantle and begins practicing may indeed have necessary fundamental skills AND demonstrate the ability to learn from practice (essentiallyself-teaching) without causing generalized mayhem… but someone who wants their hernia repaired (or their stolen car recovered) is likely best advised to instead consult a trained (and licensed)professional.

Furthermore, a profession willsupply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain. It's apparently quite common that a "citizen journalist" carefullycherry-picks facts to confirm a preexisting bias, and not unusually adds a significant portion of emptyconjecture with little effort at seeking objective proof.

As well, exceedingly few CJs earn an income from their writings (much less hope to make a living), so aren't putting themselves at any sort of risk. Overall, CJs have no ethical standard to which they must hew, no editorial oversight to restrain them, and no paycheck or career to offer up as proof ofgood faith in a legal and a moral sense.

Anyone can be (or at least attempt to be) awriter (largely anavocation), and anyone who can write can certainly hope to become established as anessayist orcritic orreviewer. However, none of those courses is inherently journalism.
Weeb Dingle (talk)11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The insertion of the term elsewhere on Wikipedia seems to be a problematic avenue for NPOV violations through sneakily connoting legitimacy to their reports. There's a MAJOR problem here in that the only definition of what a citizen journalist is *not* seems to be that they are not a professional journalist. So... then exactly what claim by a citizen is not "citizen journalism"? If I say I am 250,000 miles tall and can run faster than the speed of light, am I a citizen journalist reporting on my height and abilities? By what criteria am I not a "citizen journalist"? If you deny someone the label simply because what they are reporting doesn't fit into your current belief structure, that's bias -- you are giving the label to those whose narratives you agree with to lend legitimacy to their narratives and by extension your beliefs, and denying it to those you disagree with because they are challenging your beliefs. There is no criteria whatsoever for objectivity in the definition, yet the article has only the weakest admission of this: "some skepticizm." "outlined several weaknesses." I've done more than "outline" a weakness right here. There's no real exclusivity to the definition and so you can apply it to whomever you wish (as long as they're not professional.) You could literally sit here and put words in someone's mouth and use the term: "The victim's silence was citizen journalism on the horrors they'd been through."This issue of the lack of objectivity is what brought me here: In COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China[4] we have the claim that China was censoring "citizen journalists." But note how the tone changes if you call them, "Alarmist propagandists." "Citizen journalist" connotes some level of truth-telling but there is nothing in the definition that requires anyone to hold to any set of journalistic ethics. So by what criteria do we call one group "citizen journalists" for inclusion in an article while rejecting the POV of others as nothing more than yapping idiots other than some form of bias against the "yapping idiots" and for the "citizen journalists"?The term "Yellow journalism," distinguishes ethical journalism from propaganda. There is nothing in "citizen journalism" that does the same, which leaves the application of the term which assigns them some of the legitimacy of ethical professional journalism as an exercise of propaganda itself.2601:18B:8200:3AE:E5A1:9EF6:31A8:B431 (talk)22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen and public journalism are not the same thing. Public journalism is more conceptual and citizen journalism is more practical and it is misleading that "Citizen journalism (AKA public journalism..."— Precedingunsigned comment added byHewtay (talk •contribs)05:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirectIndependent journalism and has thus listed itfor discussion. This discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Independent journalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.QueenofBithynia (talk)10:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between18 January 2023 and9 May 2023. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Thomas Dragoni,HJudge38 (article contribs). Peer reviewers:Gstefani17,Mattw3700.

— Assignment last updated byCommDocBDS (talk)18:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Govts have always kept control on public debate and the free flow of dis-information, it is interesting that they are now allowing the term 'Citizen Journalism' to become main-stream. Are they willing to let everyone have their say - or are there other issues at play? For while anyone in the US and UK attempting to highlight important national issues are often locked out, in nations that the Washington and London are hostile towards, citizen reporters need little hard evidence to push an anti-Govt agendas. Is not this an issue that could form a section on Citizen 'Journalism' and the control of information?— Precedingunsigned comment added by2.29.103.104 (talk)12:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The placement and wording of the following sentence is confusing to me. I'm not sure what it's communicating and what it has to do with the surrounding section. Here is the sentence:

" A research team of citizen journalists created an OER library that contains video interviews to provide access to reliable sources."2605:A601:91AA:B900:4241:E540:18DC:62DD (talk)13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between26 August 2024 and13 December 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Zooropa1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated byZooropa1 (talk)17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between8 November 2024 and16 December 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):YouCantSeeMyName (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated byReneehobbs (talk)18:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Top-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Internet articles
• High-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Top-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Wikipedia article talk pages incorporating the backwards copy template