Talk:Knight Foundation and Mozilla send geeks into newsrooms

OR notes

Rather crappy audio of the interview (not suitable for publication) has been sent to scoop. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• "tablet interface prototypes for the Boston Globe" - session page
• "designs for open source software for DJs" - session page
• "hacks to enable journalists to combine video and original source text together to tell stories in more interactive ways"
  • this was one of the things built in this session
• 2nd paragraph - backed up by [1] and [2]
• "According to the fellows speaking as part of a panel discussion, many newsrooms reject the use of open source tools even for producing maps, graphs and infographics."
  • this was brought up by one of the fellows during the discussion in the Fireside Chat session
• "teaching journalists to write HTML and write basic scripts in Ruby to scrape websites" - [3] and [4]
• "discussions on Creative Commons" - the presenters of this session were from Creative Commons and discussed the difficulties of CC for professional photojournalists
• "what "hacker journalism" entails" - [5]
• "One group worked on collaboratively produced handbook on "data journalism"" - [6]
• "tested and refined Ushahidi" - [7]

—Tom Morris (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications?

I've got most of this verified. (Cool stuff.) However,

Please clarify the following points. (Next time, please — take notes at the time and write from them; also, preferably, and especially with poor audio, provide raw transcript of those interview segments from which information was taken. With OR notes, more is better. :-)

Key concerns:

• What, in the interview (or elsewhere), verifies that the BBC already embraces the use of linked data? If it's the obvious part of the audio, I'm not getting that out of it and perhaps your transcription of just what you believe was said would clear things up?
• I haven't found verification for the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, "Other fellows may look at making news websites easier to navigate on tablet devices like the iPad." Either I've missed it somewhere, or it wasn't covered in your OR notes (or both, of course).

Lesser, but some comment would be appreciated:

• I think I've about verified the explanation of what adaptable documents are about, but a transcription of that bit of the audio would be helpful.
• A few key words in the lede weren't verified until I followed the "about" link from the session pages you provided in your OR notes. I knocked off the words "annual" and "designers" that way — but I still don't have solid confirmation for the word "first" in the phrase "first annual Mozilla Festival".

Btw, I see no reason the festival web site couldn't be listed as a source — though it wouldn't reduce the need for the notes here. --Pi zero (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First point is verified by [8] and [9].

Points two and three are confirmed in the interview.

Fair enough on point four. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1319733 [Not ready]

Revision 1319733 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See the above request for clarifications. One way or another, this should all be fairly straightforward to clear up. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1319733 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See the above request for clarifications. One way or another, this should all be fairly straightforward to clear up. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1320401 [Passed]

Revision 1320401 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Hopefully that one sentence can be restored within the 24-hour window, once it's corroborated. I listened to the audio yet another half dozen or more times (some at very high volume), and have a theory about where on the tape the information is supposed to be, but I cannot devise a plausible hypothesis for what words are being said that leads to the claimed interpretation. If a transcript is provided of what words the interviewee is claimed to be saying, it can likely be verified readily — in my experience with transcribing difficult audio, it's an order of magnitude easier to judge whether or not you're hearing a certain transcribed text, than to try to discern what is being said from scratch. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1320401 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Hopefully that one sentence can be restored within the 24-hour window, once it's corroborated. I listened to the audio yet another half dozen or more times (some at very high volume), and have a theory about where on the tape the information is supposed to be, but I cannot devise a plausible hypothesis for what words are being said that leads to the claimed interpretation. If a transcript is provided of what words the interviewee is claimed to be saying, it can likely be verified readily — in my experience with transcribing difficult audio, it's an order of magnitude easier to judge whether or not you're hearing a certain transcribed text, than to try to discern what is being said from scratch. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

cat photo

Colin Diltz submitted his cat photo to CNN Ireport, and is thus, a citizen journalist in the truest sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.60.214 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 November 2011‎

Geeks

This is a journalistic term, is it? --78.150.151.138 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)