What is the crowd's opinion of WT Social?

From 3.5 billion comments

Well, I don't so much have a hard and fast figure. I think there is a minimum - I need to get enough to hire 10 journalists, otherwise I doubt if we can generate enough work to sustain interest from potential monthly supporters. So it's important to get a solid basis up front. (Don't forget to support: http://www.wikitribune.com/)

But of course there are options regarding hiring decisions. It's possible to get people earlier in their careers for less than more senior journalists, but senior journalists are important too. I think it would be unwise to be too rigid - this needs to be sustainable and productive.

J'aimerais partager ton optimisme et les tendances te donnent raison, puisque j'en suis déjà à payer pour CanardPC et NextImpact.

Mon doute réside surtout dans la capacité d'un marché libre à produire des publications de qualité plutôt que simplement ce que les gens veulent entendre. Cela dit, c'est le même problème qui s'est posé pour la presse papier donc il n'y a pas vraiment de raison que nous ne puissions surmonter cela.

La baisse certaine de la qualité des publications mainstream dans cette periode transitionelle reste un problème à résoudre. Je place mes espoirs dans des trucs comme http://www.wikitribune.com/ en espérant que les gens se tournent à terme vers la neutralité bien sourcée plutôt que Breitbart et le Huffington Post.

+jimmywales1:

Well, I don't so much have a hard and fast figure. I think there is a minimum - I need to get enough to hire 10 journalists, otherwise I doubt if we can generate enough work to sustain interest from potential monthly supporters. So it's important to get a solid basis up front. (Don't forget to support: http://www.wikitribune.com/)

But of course there are options regarding hiring decisions. It's possible to get people earlier in their careers for less than more senior journalists, but senior journalists are important too. I think it would be unwise to be too rigid - this needs to be sustainable and productive.

+jimmywales1:

• Great. So a very large part of investigative journalism and primary research has to do with getting people to go on the record with comments and getting access to relevant documents. My belief is that to the maximum extent possible, all that stuff should be published as supporting material. In a traditional top-down setting, someone else inside the paper (usually more senior, like an editor) will review that stuff, but in my model, it should be reviewable by the community.

Now, it is true that there is a valid place for anonymous tips or people speaking off the record. But I think one of the reasons the public has lost trust in the media (see: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion-of-trust-300391117.html "Trust in media (43 percent) fell precipitously and is at all-time lows in 17 countries") is an excessive reliance on "a senior government official said" or "members of the intelligence community said"... relied on too often. Showing your work is a way to build trust.

So basically, I don't propose an absolute ban on anonymous sourcing - just a "strict scrutiny" approach.

• Yeah, controversial topics are hard. I don't have a magic answer to that but I think there are some good social norms and values that can really help a community deal with it. "Assume good faith", "No personal attacks", "Don't push an agenda". And a willingness to ban people who misbehave.

• Without sounding too shamelessly "sales oriented" the best way to help today is to go to http://www.wikitribune.com/ and sign up. I could have gone to investors to raise money for this but really want to maintain intellectual independence by having lots of small supporters to help me hire journalists and get started.