Changing Media – the opening line to the book, it was free for one day on Amazon, the text lost me in the first sentence or two, discussing the way media consumption changed as a result of Wikipedia….
I doubt that Wikipedia changed it. I find it a useful, quick reference, but I can’t, with any serious intent, believe everything that’s written therein.
“Old media,” which I had as a luxury, for a brief time, with layers of copy editors, then layout artists and finally, real editors who make judgement calls, and strip sentences of the value, or improve the content, goes both ways, “Old Media,” very little of it has adapted to the new form.
- cf., Publish and Demand, from kramerwetzel.com
One editor, hat tip to Bubba, pushed me to write as long as necessary, instead of shooting for a certain length. Which gave rise to my scopes, in their fashion, that weigh in well-over 100K words in a year. Usually, not limited to, but mostly the weekly runs between 2K and 3K words. More or less, and that includes the opening quote and any perfunctory comments.
The shift, for me, was illness, near-death, blah-blah-blah, but the scopes took a longer, more relaxed and conversational turn.
As long as I’m in my current format, there will always be a few rough edges. I kind of like that.
To say that Wikipedia changed everything is sweeping statement that doesn’t hold up, but I was there, and I did see the shift.
In my own material the shift was, no longer constrained by the limits of printed format, I’ve been able to explore. Sometimes, the results are excellent. Other time, not so much.
It’s an ongoing experiment. However, that meant, from the first page, I couldn’t trust that text for accurate information.
I’m not so much a pioneer as a solo (nut) job, still exploring.