This blog was started in September 2011 with the explanatory note below. Unfortunately, the Leveson Inquiry has diverted too much of the energy that might have gone into discussing details of a new structure for media ownership without — so far — making any constructive contribution to the publishing revolution. Of course, that was no part of its brief — which was to investigate bad behaviour by the British press and suggest how its regulation might be improved. But here at post-Gutenberg, we did hope that Lord Justice Leveson’s report would have supported our contention that the best way to limit the scope for misconduct would be to encourage new competition for still-powerful old print newspapers — from the blogosphere, citizen journalists and every other means of pulpit-pelting and -sharing. We hope that this year will see real progress with the democratisation of every form of publishing — about which we will continue to post ideas and information.
27 January 2013
This site looks at hypotheses about, plans for, and experiences in publishing and journalism after print.
It originated in a 2010 paper for the Oxford Internet Institute: The Keiretsu-Cooperative: a Model for post-Gutenberg Publishing, downloadable here, free of charge.
What if you would rather be an internet mole than a peacock?
There is usually a CV or potted biography in the ‘About’ section of websites. I am not using this spot on the net as an advertisement for myself, but to encourage discussion of a set of projects.
I would, however, like to set down an unquestionably bizarre experience of representations of living people on the internet.
A few years ago, a misguided – or do I mean, officious – someone who grew impatient with my refusal to put up a personal site, contributed a Wikipedia entry about me. The two short paragraphs contained at least five mistakes. I asked the Wikipedia’s administrators to remove this potted biography. After I had a sympathetic response to an email plea from the organisation’s founder, Jimmy Wales, two or three Wikians kindly volunteered to vote in favour of respecting my wish to stay out of their online encyclopaedia when my request for deletion came up for debate by an editorial committee.
About five years later, a sort of shadow-Wikipedia took it upon itself to re-publish a seemingly random collection of deleted Wikipedia biographical entries, mine among them. Why? Perhaps, to punish everyone vain enough to write themselves into the encyclopaedia.
To underline the absurdity of any Wikipedia entry about me, I am reproducing, unchanged, the final round of the editors’ discussion of my case. Do not mistake for fact any statement about me made in it without confirming it with more reliable sources.
Wikipedia: articles for deletion: Cheryll Barron
Subject requests deletion. Feels that she doesn’t meet criteria under WP:BIO. No opinion on the matter, just bringing it here as requested for a community decision. Shell babelfish 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete With a published book from a major publisher, she does pass my inclusion criteria. However, I feel we should respect subjects’ wishes when they don’t want to have an article (though obviously only in borderline cases). Andrew Lenahan – Starblind 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep With the unreferenced bit about her opinions on people from another nation removed, now a very flattering biography of a notable author and writiter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Anti-vanity just swings it. – GWO
Keep – Err … where does the subject request deletion? The Talk page references inaccuracies, but the article now seems quite well sourced. Even given that, her publishing credits pass the WP:BIO bar. RGTraynor 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
She wrote to m:OTRS to request deletion in addition to emailing Jimbo. Shell babelfish 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep subject does seem to meet inclusion criteria; article is well-referenced and there’s sufficient information already available to the general public elsewhere. If there is another reason for wishing to be deleted (such as a legal issue) I would suggest requesting an office action. Ziggurat 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. She isn’t too notable (just 75 Googles), so we should respect her request for it to be deleted. — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete Close but just not notable enough GassyGuy 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. An orphan, to boot. Bare notability is necessary but not sufficient to keep an article. +sj + 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If the subject requests deletion, it’s a matter of courtesy to delete. Anyway, people who want to know about her can go to Google. Wikipedia is not the only source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Week keep Same opinions as above but I also share RGTraynor’s view on this one. –Pilot|guy (roger that) 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)