Innovation Presentation Rankings

April 28, 2010

Here are the compiled rankings of last night’s innovation presentations, ranked from highest to lowest overall rating, for your consideration. Take a particular look at the subcategories (digital, news, local) – is there a specific area where you can improve? There’s still time before tomorrow’s revision deadline (1p to my Martin Hall mailbox).

Last Name First Name Digital News Local Overall Score Overall Average
Crum Travis 9.35 9.53 9.29 28.18 9.39
Stubelt Cambria 8.88 9.12 9.59 27.59 9.20
Moore Evan 9.41 9.29 8.71 27.41 9.14
Tawney Heather 9.18 9.41 8.76 27.35 9.12
Wyatt Jon 9.13 8.94 9.19 27.25 9.08
Davis Rachel 8.94 9.18 9.12 27.24 9.08
Sanders Austin 9.12 8.24 9.47 26.82 8.94
Nelson Brittany 9.06 8.24 9.18 26.47 8.82
Cullen Thomas 8.47 8.29 9.53 26.29 8.76
Ash Gabrielle 9.00 7.94 8.76 25.71 8.57
Matela Gavin 9.00 7.06 8.59 24.65 8.22
Zawodni Raymond 9.06 7.19 7.94 24.19 8.06
Carey Gregory 8.53 7.06 8.47 24.06 8.02
Day Julia 9.29 7.00 6.12 22.41 7.47
Alford Ashley 9.29 6.53 6.24 22.06 7.35
Fontanazza Frank 9.18 5.76 6.94 21.88 7.29
Baum Hillary 9.06 6.53 5.47 21.06 7.02

Innovation Speed Dating Ratings

April 26, 2010

In our in-class assignment last time, we engaged in a few rounds of speed-dating-style innovation presentations. Everyone met with 7-8 others and had 2 minutes to present their fledgling innovation ideas for this week’s innovation project presentations, and your partners rated your ideas. I’ve compiled these numbers for your edification and preparation (and for those of you who want them, your evaluation sheets will be available Tuesday in the SOJ’s main office). Have a look and see where you stand.

Don’t feel bad if you’re not at the top of the list. Considering the average rating was 8.24 on a scale of 1 to 10, you’ve all got some pretty interesting ideas (or were engaging in some serious grade inflation). If you want to improve, consider how well your proposal meets the Knight News Challenge‘s three criteria:

  1. Use digital, open-source technology.
  2. Distribute news in the public interest.
  3. Test your project in a local community.

Does your idea meet these standards? We’ll be rating presentations in class today on a more specific scale. You’ll score each presenter on all three Knight News Challenge criteria. Feel like you’re weak in one? You’ve still got time to beef it up.

And now, the ratings!

  1. Ray – 8.88
  2. Evan – 8.75
  3. Austin – 8.71
  4. Paden – 8.63
  5. Brittany – 8.43
  6. Garrett – 8.36
  7. Ashley – 8.29
    Travis – 8.29
    Rachel – 8.29
  8. Gabrielle – 8.13
    Gavin – 8.13
  9. Chip – 7.86
    Heather – 7.86
  10. Greg – 7.63
  11. Julia – 7.43

(Not present: Hillary, Cambria)

Innovation Projects

April 25, 2010

(Note: You received this assignment some time ago, but I thought it’d be helpful to have in one place as things come due this week)

We have spent this semester applying new tools to the news and exploring a number of innovations in communication. Now it’s your turn. You will submit an innovation project to the Knight News Challenge. This project “seek(s) innovations that use new or available technology to distribute content in local communities,” and it offers $5 million in awards. The rules are:

  1. Use digital, open-source technology.
  2. Distribute news in the public interest.
  3. Test your project in a local community.

You do NOT need to be a technical maestro (but it helps if you can find some to work with). You just need an idea that meets the above criteria and a pitch for why it’s worth funding – the Knight money will cover development and promotion. Past entrants have incorporated SHORT video pitches – this is not required, but you might want to consider it.


  • A writeup of your proposal. These are not long but must be detailed and fit the KNC criteria. See past proposals on the site for examples.
  • A presentation of your proposal. These, likewise, are not long – 5 to 10 minutes – and use of visual and digital techniques is STRONGLY encouraged. We’ll discuss these a week before the due date to help firm up your ideas.

Due dates:

  • In-class presentations: April 27
  • Final proposal: April 27 (at the start of class)
  • Knight proposal due date: Fall 2010 (specific dates not yet posted, so you’ve got plenty of time to clean it up after the semester ends!)

Full information here:

FAQs answered at:

Read & Respond – Week 13

April 11, 2010

This is going up fairly late for this Tuesday’s class, but it’s an easy read. We’ll be exploring the often weird world of commenting this week. We’ve been posting plenty of comments of our own, so you’ve got some familiarity with the process. All of you have your own usernames with which you post to different sites. You might use the same name at multiple sites (for example, I show up as either “Aaaaaargh” and “The Bob The” in most places I go), you might have different identities in different places, or you might be one of the dreaded unregistered users.

How you comment suggests something how you view the formation of online identity. The more you use a name, the more history that name develops, allowing those who’ve never met you in the flesh to nonetheless know something about you, or at least about your persona. Your online identity(s) may not be identical to who you are at home, but to what extent are you responsible for it?

Consider this story about a judge suing a newspaper for linking her name to her comments. Several news organizations are rethinking anonymous comments for exactly this reason. On the one hand, individuals may expect a level of personal privacy when they register as commenters; on the other, a county judge is an elected official held to a definite standard. How ethical was it to connect her with her anonymous words?

Beyond expectation of privacy, to what extent should commenters be free to say what they like? Consider places like Youtube and Amazon, which boast some of the worst comments on the Internet (although Youtube has recently changed its policy); this video of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, for example, had comments disabled “since many of them were hateful and racist.” Take a look at Gawker’s comment policy, which requires commenters to audition and privileges the comments of “starred” commenters. Is this too restrictive, or do you think they’re on the right track?

How should comments run online? What would you like to see improved, and what do you think needs to remain unregulated? Imagine a world where your group blog for this class is widely read (hey, it could happen) – how would you manage your comment section to freedom of speech with civility of discourse?

Seeing as I’m late, you’ve got until class on Tuesday to post a response (to this post). More importantly, come prepared to discuss these examples and, ideally, some of your own.