The Copenhagen Project

Our model has been cleaned up a bit. We now have 8 structural categories that we think apply to all medias:

Organization: Non-profit / for-profit
Object: Link / Original content
Presentation: Prioritized / Flow
Conversation: Conversation / No conversation
Editing: Editors / Voting
Editor type: Human / Algorithmic
Frequency: Continously / Regularily
Object provider: User / Editor

To illustrate where we are heading with this model let’s take three different types of media: The New York Times (offline version), Global Voices Online and NewsTrust. Just by looking at the frontpages we can see that these three medias are quite different in structure, but how are they different? Our model gives us this answer:

NewsTrust and the two others are fundamentally different, because NewsTrust doesn’t create any content it self. What is created on the site is meta content like ratings and comments. The difference is so big that the only shared characteristic with The New York Times is the prioritization of news and that the editors are humans (in contrast to an algorithm).

It’s also worth noting that Global Voices, which basically is a group weblog, has quite a lot in common with The New York Times - yes, blogs and newspapers are different, but they aren’t that different. The model can be used for making a lot of interesting points, which I will start doing by analyzing different medias in the coming time.

As it is now, the model is capable of describing 512 different types of media. We have tried to create something that makes sense across a wide range of media, from traditional offline media, to online news sites, but also to services like Twitter and del.icio.us.

What we need now is some feedback from you. Does it make sense? Is there categories we should add? Can you see how this could become useful in idea generation? What do you think about the names of the media elements?

A medium with the characteristic of no conversation presents it’s item in a way that the user can only consume. This includes traditional newspapers, books, television, radio etc., but also news sites as nytimes.com, del.icio.us, Twitter and some blogs.

Online there’s a range of mediums which enables users to hold conversations about the objects that are central to the site. This includes most blogs, sites as Digg.com, Jaiku and online forums.

Analysis

The New York Times: No conversation
del.icio.us: No conversation
jezebel.com: Conversation
boingboing.com: Conversation
newstrust.org: Conversation
Monocle Magazine: No conversation
reddit.com: Conversation
digg.com: Conversation
technorati.com: No conversation
techmeme.com: No conversation
Google News: No conversation
daylife.org: No conversation
Newsblogger: No conversation
huffingtonpost.com: Conversation
talkingpointsmemo.com: Conversation
RSS reader: No conversation

A media can be edited by a central group of people, e.g. the editorial board of The New York Times or by the author behind a blog. The editing is restricted to a set group of people, or in the case of algorithms, on a set rule of filtering where no conscious outer influence is possible.

The opposite of centralised editing is what I think is best coined in the term “distributed editing”. By this I mean that the editing process has been opened up to outer conscious influence in some way or another. An example is digg.com, newstrust.net and others, where the editing is done by the community in a system of voting and rating.

Thoughts

This is not two definitions set in stone. digg.com uses algorithms to determine which items are promoted to the frontpage, but as the main determiner is the userbased votes I would label it a media that has distributed editing. techmeme.com on the other hand has centralized editing, as it determines it’s news on the items, that a chosen group of weblogs link to. The authors of these weblogs aren’t consciously trying to influence whether a story hits techmeme.com or not. Another example of centralised editing based on measuring is the del.icio.us-frontpage.

Analysis

The New York Times: Centralised editing
del.icio.us: Centralised editing
jezebel.com: Centralised editing
boingboing.com: Centralised
newstrust.org: Distributed editing
Monocle Magazine: Centralised editing
reddit.com: Distributed editing
digg.com: Distributed editing
technorati.com: Centralised editing
techmeme.com: Centralised editing
Google News: Centralised editing
daylife.org: Centralised editing
Newsblogger: Centralised editing
huffingtonpost.com: Centralised editing
talkingpointsmemo.com: Centralised editing
RSS reader: -

A non-profit media is an organization whose primary objective is to support an issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes, without concern for monetary profit. These interests may be focused on a specific subject, or on general principles. An example is Newstrust, which promotes quality journalism and aims to “help citizens make informed decisions about democracy.”

A for-profit media is organized as a business with the primary purpose of generating profit. An example is The New York Times.

Most experts consider the legal and ethical restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders as what fundamentally distinguishes non-profit organizations from commercial enterprises.

(The above is an edited excerpt of the Wikipedia entry Non-profit organizations.)

Analysis

The New York Times: For-profit
del.icio.us: For-profit
jezebel.com: For-profit
boingboing.com: For-profit
newstrust.org: Non-profit
Monocle Magazine: For-profit
reddit.com: For-profit
digg.com: For-profit
technorati.com: For-profit
techmeme.com: For-profit
Google News: For-profit
daylife.org: For-profit
Newsblogger: For-profit
huffingtonpost.com: For-profit
talkingpointsmemo.com: For-profit
RSS reader: -

Human editing means that the main selection and prioritization of content or links on a media is done by a group of people. This group can range from 1 person at e.g. a personal blog to a unlimited number of users at a site as e.g. Digg.com.

Algorithmic editing means that the selection and prioritization on a media is done without any humans directly involved in the process. Humans only decide the basic rules and properties of the program, e.g. which list of publications to monitor and how the algorithm weights different stories based on e.g. the number of links the story has from the blogosphere, how many sources that brings the same story etc.

Thoughts

Some medias based on user powered editing also utilize some kind of algorithmic editing. At digg.com it’s not only the number of votes that decides whether an item makes it to the front page, but also a number of other factors, unknown to the public. Still, though, the editing is mainly done by the community, and is therefore first and foremost edited by humans.

Analysis

The New York Times: Human
del.icio.us: Human
jezebel.com: Human
boingboing.com: Human
newstrust.org: Human
Monocle Magazine: Human
reddit.com: Human
digg.com: Human
technorati.com: Alghorithmic
techmeme.com: Alghorithmic
Google News: Alghorithmic
daylife.org: Alghorithmic
Newsblogger: Human
huffingtonpost.com: Human
talkingpointsmemo.com: Human
RSS reader: Human / Alghoritmic