"the Citizen Journalism Pledge"

Fair, Thorough, Accurate, Open ... all good. Balanced, Ethical? Who is to judge if you have failed to uphold your pledge? What are the consequences?

Good questions.

I tend to think in terms of incentives for folks that try and meet those standards. More home page time is all we have to offer right now,but we as a community could think of more. How about getting published in a weekly/monthly printed newsletter?

As for who is to judge... we could open post voting, the way MyDD does, and ask for the community to help decide. Right now we don't have a critical mass of writers where that approach is needed, so the volunteer team has been making the detmination of what goes on the home page. A think a combination of the site's volunteer team listening and reacting to the community's choices is probably best long term.

What do you think?

Others?

It's an interesting issue, and it gets right down to the heart of the mission of Philly Future.

I thought that Jeff Jarvis' objections were pretty sound:

Among my nitpiks with this pledge:

He requires us to promise to "work in the community interest." What community? What interest? Who's to say what the community interest is? I can only guarantee that I will post in my interest; whether I post in the community's interest, the community will have to decide.

He requires that I be "fair: I'm always listening to and taking account of other viewpoints." No, there are some viewpoints I will not take into account and not listen to. I won't listen to trolls I've put on my ignore list. I won't listen to terrorist sympathizers. I know that's not what Dan and company are asking with this, but others would. This is the issue with such a pledge: It's open to such varying interpretation: Someone will say gotcha, you didn't listen to people who hate America. And I will say: Damned straight, I won't.

Most of the pledge is very mom-and-Apple pie: I will be open and transparent and correct errors and such. I can't argue with most of this.

But I would sum the pledge in two words:

Be honest.

Doesn't that pretty much cover it?

The thing is while I would say that PF is a citizen journalism site, I'm not sure that every post is, or should be, an act of citizen journalism. There is a difference between highlighting our regional web and citizen journalism.

I don't think that every contributor to PF should have to take this pledge, but I wouldn't be opposed to having the editorial team -- or anyone else who wants to use the site to report regional news -- sign it.

However, I think that there should be space on PF for those who don't consider themselves "citizen journalists," and though the pledge itself is simple enough, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have all contributors sign it.

Good thoughts Matt and you're right - every post here isn't a citizen journalism post - it might get a bit stale around here if it was. We might lose a lot.

So instead of asking folks to take a pledge, and telling them that there are consequences when they break it (however that is judged...) maybe we can let contributors know these are our ideals. Our principals.

That yes, indeed, anyone can write from whatever angle they wish to in their personal space. Be creative. Write about whatever you want. But if you work to promote the site's principals - we will put you on the home page and more. Something we need is way of identifying the posts that were promoted after they have scrolled off the home page.

That's kind what I was getting at earlier :)

Matt raises excellent points in referring to the Jarvis comments. But I do think there could be a sort of demarcation between Philly Future's dual aspects (those beign blogging and citizen journalism).

The category tree (was that it?) you mentioned might be a worthwhile idea to pursue. Or maybe a more distinct line should be drawn? I'm not sure yet.