There is much debate about the value of amateur content on the Internet. It has been suggested that these amateur contributors, i.e. citizen journalist or bloggers, social network users etc are leading to the demise of professionals. User generated content has added an extra layer to information and data online, but does this mean that professionals are no longer needed?

As the popularity of social networking expands, so does the need for professional expert advice about how effectively utilize this form of communication. Public relations giant Ogilvy has incorporated such advice into a program designed to help maintain relationships within an online environment. “Twitter for business” explains why using Twitter as a means of communicating with company stakeholders and target publics is important. They cover suggestions on how to establish a twitter account and best practice advice when using twitter to deal with crisis prevention and management, customer relations corporate reputation management, event activation, product promotion and sales, internal communication and issue advocacy. The program also sheds light on the basic “Do’s and “Don’ts” of twitter. Olgivy has approached social networking within a business communication context, effectively applying their professional practice to a tool that was once considered only useful to amateurs.

Twitter has become a means to communicate and monitor communication. There are a lot of celebrities using twitter to boost their profiles and maintain relevance. Brisbane’s free local newspaper MX has incorporated an entire daily column dedicated to famous people’s twitter updates. Once seen as an amateur tool, twitter has leap frogged into the realm of professionals, whether it’s through “tweets”, or alternatively professionals incorporating twitter into their business models or discussion articles. Twitter generally fascinates people, and it is this fascination that acts as a perfect example of the way that the Internet has bridged the armature versus professional divide.

“TwitPitching” is a means of pitching media in 140 characters or less and may include a direct link to further information. The concept was developed by Stowe Boyd as the next generation of the press release. Limited characters means that each pitch needs to be direct and to the point. Pitches have a specific format and strict rules apply which if not conformed to may result in pitches being catergorised as spam. There is a maximum of three twitpitches allowed for each twitpitch. Pitches are open and transparent and also denote a human voice, all fundamentals of effective public relations.

The relevance of the amateur versus professional debate has almost diminished. Instead what has emerged is a merging or cross over of the two. Amateurs and professionals are communicating and creating on an equal platform. Each contribution or adaptation needed its merit assessed at an individual level. Sometimes user-generated content is more accurate or relevant than professional contributions. Sometimes professional contributions are shrouded is an underlying agenda. Blogging amateur like Parez Hilton has actually carved out a profession from his content. The value of data and content is ultimately and interpretation that is up to the individual.

We shape the media that we use, ultimately influencing its further development. The Internet is a tool for everyone to use with an infinite number of possible uses. The beauty of the Internet is that anonymity allows professionals and amateurs equal representation. We can use the Internet any way that we like to, in the same way that an artist can use ay medium to create an artwork.

Let’s just take a moment to break down this word “credible”.

Well according to Wikipedia:

“Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.

Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is a based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality). Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.”

So in terms of Wikipedia as an academic source, is it trustworthy? As an example of a snap shot of public opinion I believe it is. It does have components of an objective and subjective nature. Yes Wikipedia is ultimately subjective, however as a definition, does that not mean that it is more trustworthy? And in summation of this comparison to a Wikipedia definition – I find wikipedia incredibly attractive, not only within the context of aesthetics, but also as a source. I am attracted to a Wikipedia definition because I know that definitions will be given in accessible language and will be easy to understand. I also know that at the bottom of the page I can find useful links to other sources.

So what does a dictionary say about “credibility”?

Well Oxford’s online dictionary state that to be credible is to:

“(adjective) able to be believed; convincing”

So isn’t the concept of being convincing in fact subjective?

Why is it that in Creative Industry subjects at QUT you are able to make an academic reference to Wikipedia information but in business subjects you are not?

I will continue to use Wikipedia as a starting point for most of my research, academic and non academic. I see the value in a collective intelligence of such but at the same time can see why others may believe it inappropriate. It really does conjure notions of academic elitism, why should general information be less worthy than official academic sources. Why is one persons opinion more or less credible than another’s?  

I will finish this post with Wikipedia’s own definition of itself:

“Wikipedia is a free, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning ‘quick’) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s 12 million articles (2.8 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the Wikipedia website. Launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[7] it is currently the most popular general reference work on the Internet.

Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies, and target its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy are also an issue. Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information, though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.

Jonathan Dee, of The New York Times, and Andrew Lih, in the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism, have cited the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently-updated news resource.

When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of three examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube and MySpace.”

All whole foods for thought!

“citizen journalism embraces and embodies aspects of produsage and offers a multiplicity of perspectives on issues” (Bruns 2005, 70)

 In Ethiopia the government owns the majority of mass media outlets. The few remaining independent media companies are forced to abide by strict laws that allow the government to imprison journalists and shut down publications. Media companies that were seen to be supporting the opposition party during the 2005 general elections were shut down.  Recently the laws governing press in Ethiopia were updated, effectively allowing the government to stop the release of any story that they deemed unlawful. Harsher penalties now apply for any public defamatory.  The government now has the power to pursue these cases even when the victim of the remarks does not wish to. Basically, if a journalist or publication criticises the government as a entirety or in reference to individuals, they are legally able to fine and imprison journalists and editors, stop articles from going to print and shut down publications.

A notable example is the shut down of the privately funded fashion publication Enku. The magazine covered the story of Teddy Afro, a popular contemporary Ethiopian reggae superstar who’s songs discuss the lack of freedom and democracy in Ethiopia. Teddy Afro was accused of hitting a pedestrian and has been imprisoned.  The Enku editor and other staff members were imprisoned for four days after publishing a story which suggested that Teddy Afro had been framed. Teddy Afro still remains in prison.

So if professional journalists are being persecuted for exposing government injustices what chance do citizen journalists have? Recently a blogger from Addis Ababa was fired from his job after quotes taken from his posts were published in a government owned Ethiopian newspaper. The newspaper included the real name of the blogger in the article.  So is anonymity the answer?

Controls are not limited to traditional forms of media. As touched on in my previous post, the government also restricts access to certain internet sites. Could this be part of the reason that the Ethiopian government has not prioritised the development of technology? Are they compromising the development needs of their people because they are fearful of the way technology can be used as a form of free press?

CPJ,  the Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent organisation that promotes global free press and aims to assist with the protection of journalist worldwide.  Currently access to their site is inaccessible from Ethiopia.

Ethiopians posted comments and uploaded photos of the government’s violence towards protestors on U.S based site nazret.com after the 2005 general election. Three days later the site was no longer accessible from inside Ethiopia.

In the lead up to the 2010 general election it will be interesting to see how the government attempts to control information. The world now needs to watch the implementation of the new restrictive Ethiopian media laws. National law does not override the United Nations laws that govern human rights and freedom of speech. It is up to world leaders to pressure the Ethiopian government to conduct fair and democratic elections, and allow fair and democratic media coverage of the event.

In the developed world we view the Internet as an essential communication tool that many would find difficult to live without. The Internet has been shaped by users, for users. Our approach to the Internet is reflected in the direction of development within our online environments. Social networking and citizen journalism has broken down the traditional notions of stature within media, allowing merit to surpass education and qualifications. The ease of creating and sharing content has resulted in common place produsage as a means of conversation. We swoon over emerging communication trends such as twitter and have come to use media in a convergence style. The developed world is moving ahead, being shaped by our collective intelligence, (DIKW therory), but where does this leave the developing world? Are political agendas and a lack of funding for technology infrastructure leaving developing nations  behind?

For many years now leaders of worlds poorest nations have felt increasing pressure from the developed world, the World Bank, UNESCO, USAID and other international institutions to allocate resources to the development of new media technologies. The argument here is that the availability and access to the Internet would allow for participation,progress and ultimately the improvement of living conditions for the populations of these nations.  The Internet is often interpreted as one of the greatest solutions to decreasing the global divide between rich and poor.

For the purpose of this post, I am specifically going to look at the development of the Internet in Ethiopia. According to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) Ethiopia is ranked eighth on the list of worlds least desirable countries to live in, based on living standards and quality of life. (//www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778562.html)

“The UN classifies countries as “least developed” based on three criteria: (1) annual gross domestic product (GDP) below $900 per capita; (2) quality of life, based on life expectancy at birth, per capita calorie intake, primary and secondary school enrollment rates, and adult literacy; and (3) economic vulnerability, based on instability of agricultural productions and exports, inadequate diversification, and economic smallness. Half or more of the population in the 50 least developed countries listed above are estimated to live at or below the absolute poverty line of U.S. $1 per day.” http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0908763.html

Ethiopia has a long history of civil violence and political uncertainty. The current Prime Minister Meles Zenawi  forcefully over threw the communist Mengistu regime in May 1991. Since then the country has struggled with freedom and democracy, elections have come and gone with consistent claims of human rights abuses and corruption. Ethiopia is also actively at war with Eritrea and have a military force in Somalia. It has become apparent that the majority of government funds are allocated to defense interests, leaving large gaps to be filled by foreign aid. Ethiopia has approximately two Internet users per one thousand people. Many of the 80 million people who live in Ethiopia reside in the rural areas, with only 6 million people living in the Capital Addis Ababa.

In 2005 Mr Zenawi publicly acknowledged the importance of the development of universal Internet access for his people and promised to invest in technology to support this concept. He is yet to deliver on this promise. In Addis Ababa most cafes promote wireless Internet access, however it is quite unreliable and very slow. This wireless trend also assumes that people either own or have access to a lap top or wireless device, a luxury that for many is not realistic.

Not only is Internet in Ethiopia hard to come by and frustrating to use, but it is also censored by the government. Since the violence that surrounded the 2005 general election many internationally administered sites have remained restricted. Blogs and news sites that appear to side with any opposition to the Zenawi government are simply banned, leaving no room for democratic debate.

So where does this leave Ethiopians within the context of the produsage concept? Clearly politics is getting in the way of investment in technology infrastructure which has  hindered free access to information.  Do we, as the developed world have a duty of care to ensure that all people have access to information and knowledge? How can we prioritise development of technology versus food aid, education and health? Why are we so concerned with handing out food and giving out endless emounts of money when clearly the governing authorites in countries like Ethiopia appear to lack motivation to invest in their own deveopment?

We need to rethink forgien aid, rethink handouts and assess the ways in which our giving enables dependance.