Talk:Innovation journalism

Untitled

More information about Innovation Journalism - [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/04-22-2004/0002158065

a PR Newswire press release from the Stanford conference] - dnordfors

Structure of article

I have moved the comment from the Finnish group out of "Introduction" (formerly "The Beat"), as this section needs to be very clear and unambigous for the reader seeking a short introduction to IJ. In an initial attempt I re-edited the introductory statement to encompass what I saw as the main issue put forth by the Finnish group. This does not seem to have succeeded, and the Finnish theory has reappeared, stressing that there still is some difference in interpretation.

I have therefore moved down the comment to a new section titled "Research", with a slight revision of the text in the part claiming a broadening of the definition of IJ, making clear that a suggestion for broadening the definition has been made. It is not fully clear to me in which way the definition is suggested to be broadened. As I see it, the social aspects are included in the definition. Clarification needed.

dnordfors

Erkki Kauhanen of the Finnish Research project (Univ. of Tampere) responds.

The main definitional issue put forth in our research is not that IJ should also discuss "the social impact" of technological change. That would be only a minor adjustment to the original concept. We propose that also social innovations must be included. That is a major change.

There is a considerable amount of research (in sociology, sociology of science, sociology of technology, history of technology, and related fields) that shows, that the relationship of technological change and social change is very intimate indeed. Not only does technological change affect society, but society affects technological change as well. Every technological movement is paralleled by some social movement, which is not only a reaction to the technological change, but in fact, a co-producive part of it, a necessary condition. Which of them is the hen and which of them is the egg, is an old bone of contention (alhought not a very interesting or necessary one, as in fact the two are inseparable).

Thus, e.g. the revolution of mobile technology is not only about inventing and marketing some portable technological gadgets, but a profound social transformation where the whole concept of social space is changing. These changes are realized through social innovations, which therefore become a part of the new technology. Therefore we see technology (and technological innovations) as many-layered structures where the user-innovation part is necessarily included. Some of the user innovations are social by nature, some of them are more related to user know-how.

Then there are also the institutional social innovations that change and articulate the innovation environment where technological change takes place. They may take the form of legislation or what ever, but fundamentally they are novel ways of organizing human relations.

The unifying concept that bridges technological change and social change is "the future work" of society. Technological change and social change are but different aspects of this "future work".

In European innovation policy discussions and European innovation research the above mentioned and some other types of social innovations are increasingly seen as an essential part of the national and regional innovation systems. This paradigm change has been going on for some time already and it should affect the concept of innovation journalism.

The proposed widening of the concept of innovation journalism has the major consequence that IJ is not only seen as a partial merger of technology journalism and business journalism (as the original proposal de facto makes it), but it becomes possible to do IJ inside any journalistic beat, by any journalist interested in the future work of society. Thus, instead of a separate beat it becomes a certain way of doing journalism in a more analytic and future-oriented way. In a world where technological change is one of the major movers of perhaps the most important mover, technology reporting is necessarily a central part of all future-oriented reporting.

Thus, innovation journalism in the narrow (original) sense is part of IJ in the wider sense (future journalism ?) proposed here.

The original concept of IJ is a valuable, and indeed, necessary proposal to develop journalism, but in the narrow formulation it falls short of its goals. As a practising journalist of more than 25 years of experience in science and technology reporting and also as a media researcher I don't see it bringing very much new form or content to journalistic media. If this slightly pessimistic analysis is right, the narrow concept will fade from sight in a few years, as so many other journalistic fads have done. Only if the concept finds a meaning that brings real changes in journalistic contents and practices, it will have a more lasting effect in media, under one name or other. Names are not important, ideas are.

In any case, it is all the same if the reference to our wider concept is in the section called "Research" or in the section called "Introduction". The important thing is that the proposal to widen the concept is there.

self-promotional: if it ain't ethical, it ain't journalism

. . .

hmmmm ...

Is this not a bit self-promotional? I am worried about the ethics of this self-promotion. I am worried about the language of this article, which reads like an advertisement. I am also worried about the lack of flags on this page. I'm no expert but the whole thing feels wrong. I came here to get an opinion on the following blog post.

http://cbrayton.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/what-is-innovation-journalism/

avaiki (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely self-promotional, and little else. No references, not much use outside of the people who invented the concept. "InJo". So it's journalism about innovation? Like "SpoJo" for sports then? Or "PoJo"? Or "WeJo"? No, I never heard of those either. This needs some serious references to show notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, you have already once listed the article for deletion based on these arguments. Your arguments were not endorsed, the article was not deleted. It remained in place. During the course of the discussion around your suggestion for deletion, numerous references were added to the article. After the decision to keep the article, you edited it, removing quite a few of the references, including the seminal paper and the review paper. I put those two references back, without adding much to your edit. The article as it shows today is almost entirely your own edit. Let me point out that the majority of the references are NOT from people who invented the concept. Please avoid making sweeping statements, using irony, and instead keep this discussion on a friendly, factual level, It will be much better, and it will no doubt produce a much better end result. --dnordfors (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

severe cleanup

The piece has been severely cleaned up, it's down to the essentials now. dnordfors —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC). --dnordfors (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is still not enough resources to show notability, and it still seems to be a neologism. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing Neologism Tag

The Neologism tag has been attached to the article since May 2012. Since then there have been two failed nominations for deletion, both based on allegations that the article promoted a neologism. The allegation was overruled both times in similar discussions. Since there also were allegation of COI, I should add that I participated actively in the discussion the first time when the judgement was "no concensus". I stayed completely away from the discussion the second time, and the result was "keep".

Since the "neologism" allegation has failed twice, it seems to me it is a good time to remove that tag. Are there any rules for removing the tag? --dnordfors (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't worry too much about the tags: many WP articles, even excellent ones, have tags at the top. Second, if you want to get rid of the tags, you'll need to provide lots of excellent WP:Reliable sources on the topic of "innovation journalism": and many of the sources must be from "impartial" sources (independent newspapers, magazines, books etc - independent means not written by "proponents" of the topic. When you think that you have a sufficient number of independent sources, you should then do the following:

1. Add the sources into the article; de-emphasize or remove sources that are written by "proponents" of the term/topic
2. List the independent sources in this Talk page
3. Remove the tags, and explain why
4. If the tags are re-inserted by another editor, open a case at WP:DRN to get another editor to help resolve the problem.
5. If the DRN case does not resolve the matter: Then open a Request for Comment and get several editors to give opinions.
6. If the RfC does not work, there is nothing else you can do except wait for more/better independent sources on the topic to be published.

Good luck. --Noleander (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, thanks for good guidance. --dnordfors (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the "Neologism" tag now. The article was nominated for removal twice, both times for "neologism". The first time there was no consensus, the article was kept. It was renominated for removal, and this time the decision was "keep". The jury has had its say (I was not involved in the discussion), the decision has been taken: the neologism charge does not stand. --dnordfors (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've restored the tag. It was not closed keep because it was not a neologism. That was only part of the case, a part that was not refuted. Given your clear confict of interest and your attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion you are far from the appropriate person to remove this tag. It's still a neoglism (first sugested in 2003). It's still written in a way that promotes it. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, you are misinformed. The neologism charge was brought up every time and was indeed refuted every time. The article in it's present form is not edited by me, it is edited by an editor who for sure was not promoting the concept. Please respect the outcome of previous procedures. I am removing the neologism tag, as neologism has been ruled out several times. --dnordfors (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've restored the tag. Given your COI you are not the right person to be removing disputed tags. Neogolism has not been ruled out, only outcomes have been about wether ot is notable or not. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Duff: It is unlikely that more sources will be found on this topic. If you think the article does not meet WP notability criteria, you should initiate an AfD. The article has already been through two AfDs. If you choose not to initiate an AfD, given that there are no more sources, the tag should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme - actually, your are wrong on all points. Go back to the AdD discussions. As for COI, perhaps you have personal reasons to want to delete this article. It is impossible to know, because you are not using your real name. What is your real name? Do you have a LinkedIn page?--68.65.167.176 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sage Encyclopedia on Journalism includes Innovation Journalism. Neologism tag removed.

Innovation Journalism has been a chapter in the Sage Encyclopedia on Journalism since 2009. The reference has been added. The neologism tag has been removed in accordance. Utalempe (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Innovation Journalism Publication Series and innovationjournalism.org

Many of the sources in this article are from innovationjournalism.org, in particular the so called Innovation Journalism Publication Series. Both of these are vehicles created by David Nordfors, who claims to have pioneered the concept of Innovation Journalism. As such it is my opinion that these publications are may primarily be something David Nordfors is doing to promote this concept he invented, and I'm highly skeptical to if it can be regarded as reliable sources, as it seems like self-promotion. Opinions? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Innovation journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316234553/http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf to http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316234553/http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf to http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)