Talk:Citizen journalism

Really should be moved to citizen journalism...but then, the subpages need to be moved, too. --Larry Sanger 15:51, 20 November 2007 (CST)

Edit explanation

Larry asked on my talk page to explain why I cut this article. Let me explain sentence-by-sentence:

The basic idea of "Citizen Journalism" has been with us in some form since the very beginning.

I thought this sentence wasn't informative. If we want a history of citizen journalism, it should be in the article. It does not define when "the very beginning" is. The very beginning of journalism? The very beginning of the printing press? The United States? The human race? I cut it for that reason.

Journalists have often been thought of as representatives of the people, voices of the citizenry. Those who could read, write, print, and circulate information without approval by the state were thought of as independent -- and therefore a check on governments, monarchs, and the aristocracy.

The first paragraph of the article should define citizen journalism, while the main article on journalism can do it for the broader subject.

Since the beginning of the 21st Century, the Internet has become a new version of the printing press, decentralizing the power to publish.

True, but I find it sounds a little corny and out of place.

This decentralization, in turn, has led many to suggest that it was time for a new kind of journalism where citizens themselves would actually do the reporting.

This should be reintegrated into the article, but again it feels slightly out of place.

I think the edit I've done tightens it up, reduces excess verbiage and gets to the point quicker. Does that satisfactorily explain my reasoning? --Tom Morris 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)