I felt the way I think a gerbil would feel, running around that wheel. You’re never done. Because if your only goal is to follow the news, you quickly discover that the news never ends. It just refreshes itself.
This article is part of our online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here. Part two of Daniel Luzer’s journey through linkspace is coming soon.
"About an hour in, I realized that all of these links make it sort of hard to actually finish an article."
Well... then don't click all the links then?
Just like very few people read every single line on every single page of a dead-tree newspaper, I imagine that there are very few people who go through online news stories clicking on every single link. The beauty of choice - click on them or don't.
This article makes it out like clicking links is some sort of life-or-death struggle that readers can't cope with. That's... ridiculous.
Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 03:36 PM
Is this what you Columbia students pay $50,000 a year for? Seriously? To write long, boring, fluffy (this was clearly written for a class because it's artificially long) and ultimately inaccurate stories?
The only thing I got from this piece was that Columbia doesn't get it. Doesn't get why link journalism works (or what it even is). Hint: it's about curation. Nobody in their right mind would tell you to click EVERY link you see. Seriously? This has about as much scientific merit as the movie Supersize Me.
You need to think of the link as a citation. Now journalists can link to other, often more authoritative sources. This is why it's called the Web. It's a Web of information, radiating out. It makes us all smarter.
Journalists can also act as curators, finding the best links around their beats. This is what link journalism is all about.
Now, none of us can be held accountable for the fact that you choose to click EVERY link you saw, while displaying no capacity for selectivity. Every human being has to be his or her own filter. There is too much information produced in newspapers, let alone the Web, for all of us to consume and process.
Posted by Patrick Thornton on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 03:59 PM
To the contrary, I find that way too many online articles/posts are link-deficient. The point is not necessarily to seed content with links you expect everyone will follow - but to make those links available, so that anyone who IS interested in more information can access it easily. That is an important job for writers, producers, editors. And not just to hotlink other articles etc., but even more importantly, to link the native webpages for facilities, groups, whatever you mention. I see so many old-media organizations just reposting their articles online, flat, linkless, and therefore lifeless. Totally ignores what the Internet is really all about - EVERYTHING is just a wheel hub, and a content creator's value includes adding at least a fair amount of potential spokes.
Posted by Tracy @ WSB on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 05:11 PM
@ Patrick Thornton: I don't think this piece is intended to be the final word on hyperlinks, or that it makes any claims to scientific merit. The story's premise is obviously an artifical construction, but I don't think it claims to be much more than an exploration of what it would be like to actually follow all of the links you see each day, and whether you would learn anything (about the subject at hand, about the Web, etc) by doing so. Sure, it's a stunt; in the process, though, I think he makes some decent points about curation and citation and how various news sites deal with both.
Posted by Justin Peters on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 05:25 PM
I agree with Patrick [Thorton]. You're not expected to read every link, just as no one expects you to read every reference in a bibliography or within footnotes. You get to choose, and while reading every link could edify and improve your understanding, it can also be a distraction if your sole intent is to finish the article in one go. You could of course do what most of us aspiring/practicing link journalists do. Read the article once and then verify information that catches your attention by following the link trail.
Look, link journalism is about letting readers uncover source material, verify the references if they choose to as much as it is about allowing journalists to create a 'narrative' using the links. It gives us so much more depth and room to play with.
On that note, less discussion, more experimentation. Links away!
Posted by Ashir B. on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 05:27 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that this story would have been seriously made more valuable by... having a bunch of links to the stories the author talks about?
Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 05:43 PM
Ha! I think there's a promising future for CJR link-baiting the dons of new media journalism. You got under Jay Rosen's skin yesterday, and now you've got Patrick Thornton's dander up! Wait, where's digidave?
Pretty soon you're going to hurt Jeff Jarvis's feelings too. Watch out--we all know what will happen then!
PS. Dan's my amigo, but my sense is that this piece suffers some mission creep. I'm not quite sure how it started with what seems like a funny idea about chasing all those links (to be read at any price, for mr. luzer will pay bear any burden!) and ended with this thud:
"The problem with this strategy" of "sending visitors away" in order " to keep them coming back" is "that all of this linking around ... mainly just introduces the reader to a bunch of things he has to ignore...." Ouch!
Posted by Josh Young on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 05:54 PM
@Patrick Thornton: Well yes. This was a stunt, to accompany CJR's information overload issue. The goal was just to see where the links would lead if I focused on them and treated them as a serious part of the articles in which they were integrated. Obviously no one chases every link; investigations of this type are necessarily unnatural. So be it. At the same time, I think seeing links as simply an article's bibliography is mistaken. Many computer scientists originally envisioned the hyperlink for this purpose, but over time the hyperlink's use has expanded. And, yes, this piece has limited scientific merit; it's journalism.
@Travis Mason-Bushman: In regards to putting hyperlinks within the article, this was something I considered (for a long time) but ultimately rejected because I thought it would muddy the message. Also, looking back at my notes, it looks like a lot of the links from the election are now dead.
Posted by Daniel Luzer on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 06:30 PM
If you clicked every link, wouldn't you wind up at a pornographic website?
Posted by surlybastard on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 07:19 PM
@Tracy,
I agree. The worst part of many news sources is that they don't link out, and it's killing much of traditional media. It drives me crazy when a major news organization has a story about something and can't even link to what they are talking about. Seriously? In the year 2008? Really?
@Josh,
Perhaps mission creep is the issue here. This could have been a good tongue-in-cheek piece, but it comes off as too serious and almost academic. Everyone knows there is a lot of information on the Web (and in libraries and in the world's newspapers). I don't quite get what this piece is supposed to say.
By the way, Digidave is a graduate of Columbia's journalism program.
@Daniel,
I think if you and CJR intended this to be a stunt, it might have worked better as a more humorous, less serious piece.
I would argue that links make articles on the Web better by allowing people to check out citations. The best part of Wikipedia are all the citations at the bottom. Those are the only way to check the validity of an entry. They are also a good way to learn more about a subject.
I think you and CJR are underestimating the power of linking. Yes, I wouldn't trust every link you find, but that's where curators like The Drudge Report come in. Either you trust Drudge's linking abilities or you don't. That determines how you view the merit of that site. Matt Drudge is just an editor. He filters what he thinks is news worthy.
I would not go following random links from random people on random sites. That's not how good link journalism works. But there is a serious future for many journalists in link journalism. The role of editor is still an important role on the Web.
Posted by Patrick Thornton on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 10:28 PM
I agree - the article would have benefited from more humor, and a lighter hearted look at information in general. Having raised kids and been a teacher (now studying journalism) I ask you, who is the final arbiter of "truth"? Generally the person who says "Because I say so."
The key is to follow the information trail with intent, the same holds true for a conversation. Autism is the inability to filter, and it is not a comfortable experience. It is important to seek a plethora of information beyond our level of comfort - but by no means without any filters in place.
I like links - and I like links that add to the richness and texture of the message. Linking has the potential (good and bad) of being the coolest fourth dimensional filing system ever. Push the boundaries - enjoy. And lighten up.
Posted by sarah guthrie on Thu 4 Dec 2008 at 10:54 AM