A crowdsourcing ramble 

I had a sketchy idea for newspapers that are turning to so-called crowdsourcing.

What if papers adopted a form something like the answer sites, like ask.com or the expert advice sites, where any old person can submit an answer, but then some verifying and sifting goes on at some point.

Mark Glaser does this in sort of a manual way on MediaShift, but I'm thinking of something a little more automated.

It might work like this: an editor at a suburban paper posts a posit that... something is going on locally, I don't know what -- maybe there's some repressive policy at a high school that might be violating students' civil rights.

Readers post what they know about the specific topic.

Opinions about the topic without facts get moved to a message board (and soon people will get the idea that's where opinions go).

After a specified period of time, but it's quick, the topic is closed and the editor comes back to sum up, correct inaccuracies, report on tips in posts that have been followed up on by newspaper staff, and quote school officials on their reaction to the thread. Readers who post guesses would be called out, discouraging others from posting without backup.

You might have something like ratings, only it wouldn't be about "I like this post;" it would rate the accuracy. If a reader chose a radio button beside another reader's post marked "I know this is wrong," the reader doing the rating would be presented with a textarea to explain. The highest accuracy option on a Likert scale would be something like "This happened to me, too" or "I saw this happen."

None of it could be anonymous, and it would require followup. It wouldn't be news writing itself. Reporters would actively contact readers, especially those posting dramatic news, and mark posts containing wild rumors with the status of their followup. Or maybe, really far-out stuff would have to be nuked. Hey, I'm just thinking out loud.

One thing I do know, from moderating message boards for so many years. You'd have to keep the rules tight, and not allow rude and drive-by conversation. I know that people who have never frequented places where polite online discourse goes on don't believe that manners can be taught and enforced, but it's not that tough, it just takes close tending.

Actually, I think the whole crowdsourcing thing may be better suited to trade magazines than consumer newspapers. Talk about readers knowing more than writers do, it was never so true as it is in publications for verticals.

Playing to strengths 

I should look around in Second Life more than I have, but from what I hear about the empty storefronts and from what I see in screenshots of meeting rooms where people don't do anything but talk and sit and look at slides, it seems like there could be more action in the business scene there. You know, to use the medium for what it does best.

For example, is there any simulation training going on? Picture this: OSHA regulatory compliance training on confined spaces. You roleplay the victim and rescuers and bystanders and managers in a virtual space that simulates a real physical situation. It would be way better than classroom training, and quite a bit more effective than online training, which can include simulations, but can't be as dynamic as acting out a situation in real time with other people.

It might work with customer service training for retail and food service, too.

What would be some other examples?