The benefit of all the feedback is obvious in Wong’s new story. From the original story, thorough enough in its own right, to the profound depth of the information available on the Web site, to the print feature, replete with bells, whistles and addendums, there is more than enough to educate and entertain readers. The new, if subtle, scientific detail in the finished product is a significant improvement, and even more of the gritty, anthropological specifics can be found in the expert commentary on the Web. In that respect, the experiment can be called a success. But such a process also requires a lot of extra work on the part of reporters and editors, and that raises questions about its practicality in an age of shrinking news staffs. Is open source Wiki-reporting an efficient way to deliver the news? Wong said that she was in a good position to make a first stab at it because she is SciAm’s online editor and has also worked for the print edition. “I’m not a paleoanthropologist,” she said, referring to her readers’ many questions, “so for some I had to go back to the books … but it wasn’t all that demanding. If you’re willing to open yourself to the possibility that your readers want something different than what your gut is telling you to do, then it is really rewarding.”

To make the most out of new media requires more, however. The experiment did not have a dedicated page on the Scientific American Web site, and it may not have been clear to casual visitors that anything out of the ordinary was going on. “If you really want to do this,” Rennie said, “there’s a lot about the online presentation that has to click in terms of pulling all the information, graphics and discussion platforms together.” Another challenge with a multimedia presentation is “getting a feel for the different audiences that you have online and in print,” Rennie said. “The general observation that most people have had is that there’s more technology interest in your online audience than there is in the print audience.” The list of such considerations is quite long.

Which stories best lend themselves to open source/multimedia platforms? What types of audience or readership are most apt to take part in networked reporting? Can open source reporting be used to break the news as well as expand upon it? How do we define participatory journalism? Was SciAm’s experiment Wiki-reporting? Networked reporting? Citizen journalism? These questions remain open because editors and publishers, especially in the mainstream press, have undertaken only a limited number of experiments in new media.

According to Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, the first stab at open source reportage was a 1999 article about cyber-terrorism in Jane’s Intelligence Review, “the international journal of threat analysis.” Editors submitted the piece to the readers of www.Slashdot.org, “news for nerds,” and asked for edits, but feedback was more excoriating than constructive, so the story did not run. In June 2005, the Los Angeles Times opinion page suffered a similar embarrassment when it decided to allow its readers to edit and improve “War and Consequences,” an editorial about the Iraq War. Editors shut down the experiment after two days when readers repeatedly posted pornographic photos. Coincidentally, it was www.Slashdot.org that directed its readers to the Times “wikitorial.” Some experiments are proving more successful, however. This summer the Washington Examiner launched its Community Action Network (WECAN). The project is trying to link reporters with community leaders and activists by posting databases online that relate to government services such as public works, transportation and educations. Also this summer, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington began Web-casting its news meetings, hoping that such transparency would improve trust with its readership.

At this nascent stage in the development of new media, it is of little use to label any such experiment a categorical failure — even the disastrous mishap in the L.A. Times. As a modus operandi, open source journalism is only beginning to take shape, and more disappointments will surely attend its development. Journalism needs more experimentation, not less, and a willingness on the part of editors, publishers and reporters to expose themselves to the inevitable risks of innovation. Scientific American’s effort is proof that such gambles can pay off.

• 1
• 2