Hot Ink's project page at github.com, a social open source development site
The first decision we made when starting Hot Ink was to keep the project “open source.” We mention it everywhere, so that’s probably no surprise. Maybe you’ve even heard of it before. So, you’re entitled to ask: what specifically does “open source” mean, and why should I care?
If you’re anything like me, the first place you’ll look is the wikipedia page. That’s interesting, sure, but it’s also a little bit long and both too general and technical for our purposes. Instead, let’s keep it simple. To us “open source” will mean software development where the both final code and ongoing development are transparent (i.e. viewable and trackable online.) This is the opposite of traditional “closed-source” development, where only the final product is available and the code running it is completely hidden.
Open-source reporting?
A good way to understand the differences, from a software developer’s point of view, is to consider what it would be like to write a news article in an open-source environment. Currently, most campus newspaper articles are “closed source.” Reporters gather some primary and secondary sources, write up an article, then pass it off to their editor as a more-or-less complete package. That editor may have access to the primary sources but readers generally don’t. Readers get the final product, read it and live with it.
In an open-source reporting environment, the early stages would be very similar. A reporter would collect information from sources, write up an article, and then submit it to an editor for publication. However, readers would be given access to the reporter’s copy, notes and source materials. If a reader was confused by a clause in the article they could refer to the sources (or the notes) and determine the author’s true intent. Then, if the reader is motivated enough, he or she can update the story to read a little clearer. Expand this on a massive scale and what do you get? Wikipedia, more or less.
In reality, some will view this as a terrible way to write articles. After all, readers turn to your paper to see the news summarized and prioritized, not to sift through the raw sources themselves. I think we can all admit: for articles, the open source jury is still out. But for software—in the age of social media—it makes more sense than ever.
Self-reinforcing community
Our primary motivation for keeping Hot Ink open source is the desire to build a community of Canadian campus newspaper editors, staff and volunteers that view online publishing as a series of exciting opportunities, not daunting challenges. Post-secondary students catch media trends fast. We want to use the bleeding-edge readership and nimble operational size (read: small) of campus publications to turn them into centers for innovation in online publishing, rather than experts at playing catch-up.
It’s a long walk, but the first step is education. By opening up the Hot Ink source and starting this blog we’re beginning a conversation. We’re encouraging any campus newspaper staff who know how to take a look, spot something you don’t like and submit a patch. We’re encouraging those who don’t to stay tuned, read all you can, and ask questions.
Over the next few months we’ll be going over the core concepts behind Hot Ink, as well as the technologies we ‘ve relied on to achieve them (and why!) We believe very strongly that there’s a serious future in the media world for publishers that commit themselves to digital media in a smart and open way.
If you think like we do, don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Tags: Development, open source, open source reporting, wikipedia