Blog

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, home to some of the brightest people in the universe, and possibly beyond, needs your help.

Yes, you.

The university's Collective Intelligence Laboratory has announced it will launch the first "wiki" project to publish a book. The title will be written by an open community of online contributors like you. Whether you studied at the Harvard Medical School or Harriet's Hairstyling Academy is not important; the project is the ultimate publishing meritocracy, in which the quality of ideas and not academic or professional pedigree are what matter.

For those two or three people who have yet to stumble into the Wikipedia, the mother of all Wikis, some wiki basics are in order. Simply put, a wiki is a type of Website that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and edit content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of interaction lets hundreds or thousands of contributors who need not even know or meet one another to collaborate as authors.

The Wikipedia itself was founded in 2001 as an online encyclopedia--with a radical twist on authorship. Unlike the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is written by carefully chosen scholars under close editorial supervision, the Wikipedia lets anyone create or edit an article. The idea is that, despite the fact that any Joe can work on an article, Wikipedia's content is self-correcting because its community keeps a close eye on the accuracy of articles and quickly corrects inaccurate or biased entries.

In sheer volume, at least, wiki publishing seems to work spectacularly well. According to the Wikipedia, there are now 67,000 active contributors working on more than 4,600,000 articles in more than 100 languages. To date, they have contributed 1,457,488 articles in English. By contrast, the Encyclopedia Britannica contains a paltry 80,000 articles.

It also appears that the Wikipedia is as rapidly self-correcting as advertised. In 2005, Esquire magazine writer A.J. Jacobs decided to post a poorly written, error-filled draft of an article to the site. Contributors descended like vultures to carrion. The article was edited 224 times in the first 24 hours after Jacobs posted it, and another 149 times in the next 24 hours.

So is the MIT wiki book, tentatively titled We Are Smarter Than Me, the end of publishing by expert authors in favor of publishing by the masses? Perhaps not entirely. Experiments with opinion articles--"Wikitorials"--have gone less than swimmingly, as might be predicted in the age of Red State-Blue State polarization.

Wikis are likely better suited to creating and revising a factual resource than to commentary and analysis. Malcolm Gladwell at The New Yorker can probably keep his day job. A buzzing swarm of contributors would likely not have come up with The Tipping Point anytime this century.

Still, it is quite probable that journals and magazines will be organized around wikis, or incorporate wiki-created content. Already Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales has created Wikia, a service to enable user-created Web sites with articles and discussion groups on any subject imaginable. If the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, then Wikia looks a lot like the magazine rack of the online world.

Publishing didn't used to be rocket science. When engineers from MIT start getting into the act, though, it's time to stay near the frontiers of communications technology.

Those interested in contributing to the MIT project should visit the We Are Smarter Than Me Web site.

The news today that veteran broadcaster Jane Pauley is suing the New York Times over her appearance in a sponsored supplement should prompt editors' analysis--but not paralysis.

Custom special publications and Web products are a fact of publishing life these days--at least for publications that worry about maintaining a healthy bottom line. Advertisers tend to view the traditional display ad as ho-hum and look for more: special supplements, special Web sites and events, special white papers, and other custom communications.

Fortunately, editorial and publishing organizations have drafted guidelines to prevent the blurring of editorial and advertising matter. Guidelines such as those from the American Society of Magazine Editors allow for sponsored supplements, as long as certain rules are obeyed. In the case of advertising supplements produced by outside firms working for the parent publication, the ASME rules are clear: "Editorial-looking sections or pages that are not produced by a magazine’s editors are not editorial content. They should be labeled 'Advertisement,' 'Special Advertising Section,' or 'Promotion' at the top of every page in type as prominent as the magazine’s normal body type."

In fact, the Times appears to have complied with these guidelines. The dispute has arisen not over the publication itself, but in whether or not Pauley knew she would appear in an advertising supplement and not the Times proper. She says that she believed she was being interviewed by newspaper editorial staff for a special news supplement on bipolar illness. Pauley disclosed in September 2004 that she suffers from bipolar disorder.

In fact, Pauley was interviewed by a staff member of a publishing firm hired by the Times to create the supplement, which was sponsored by pharmaceutical firms making drugs for mental illness. The Times maintains that Pauley's staff was made aware that she would be participating in an advertiser-funded supplement.

Whatever the outcome of this case, it should serve to remind editors and publishers that sources who agree to participate in a sponsored supplement should be aware of the nature of the publication. Otherwise, the door is opened to the kind of privacy and fraud claims in Pauley's suit.

The danger now is that Pauley's case taints those publishers who do take care to maintain a clear divide between advertising and editorial when creating special publications. The practice of creating advertising supplements, clearly labeled as such, poses none of the ethical sleight of hand that does, for example, paid product placement.

It would be unfortunate both for advertisers and readers if publishers turn away all sponsored projects to reduce risk. After all, in business as in life, there is only one foolproof way to eliminate all risk: Die.

When you work for an association publication, much of your work is in prodding and cajoling members to do something. Join our advocacy effort! Buy our book! Register for our meeting!

Here is what many readers are thinking: "Whatever." (Worse, they may be saying "whatever" to themselves with that infuriating blend of boredom and insolence that teenagers typically use.)

Sometimes, associations respond to member indifference by doing the same thing, just more of it. One article and one page about the annual meeting didn't get many registrants, so two articles and four pages are sure to.

Well, probably not. The problem likely isn't the intensity or frequency of the message, but the message itself. Getting people to respond means paying attention to their interest in doing something new.

In the field of health, for example, educators and counselors learned long ago that telling a person who enjoys smoking and has no desire to quit about the risks of lung cancer and emphysema is worse than talking to brick wall--not only does it not work, but the wall tends to become defensive and disinterested. Loss of lung elasticity has no relevance to a two-packs-a-day man.

Health counselors who work with patients like the unrepentant smoker now use the "readiness to change" model. Developed by James O. Prochaska, a psychologist at the University of Rhode Island, this simple model says there are five stages in a person deciding to do something new: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Precontemplation is the stage at which there is no intention to change behavior in the foreseeable future, and contemplation is the stage at which someone is thinking of changing, but hasn't made plans to do so yet.

Many of your readers and members are still in the precontemplation and contemplation stages. They are just not ready to get more involved, and telling them repeatedly how terrific the annual meeting is or why lobbying is so important is not going to bring them around.

For the member who has not gotten involved in the association and has no plans to soon (precontemplation), the task is simply to engage them in a conversation about their needs and interests so as to raise awareness. A smoker at this stage might be asked, "What do you like about smoking, and are you worried about weight gain if you quit?" Similarly, using Web-based polls or surveys, you can ask readers about their awareness of a particular issue.

For those who want to get more active in the association, but haven't gotten around to it yet, asking about the barriers to greater engagement is helpful. Just as you would ask a smoker, "What is it that keeps you from setting the date and quitting?" you can ask members, "What keeps you from attending the annual meeting? Price? Not knowing anyone yet? Fear that the program won't be relevant?" Again, use Web-based tools to start a good discussion.

Keep your expectations realistic. In any association, there is a sizable fraction of members who want nothing more than the magazine in the mailbox or the ability to purchase benefits like insurance.

Others, however, really do at some point want to get more engaged in your association's work. The trick to getting them there is not to keep telling them more about you. It is to keep asking more about them.

NEW YORK, OCTOBER 24--In the age of publishing by the people, with do-it-yourself blogging, podcasting, and Web sites, are editors still needed?

Yes, more than ever, answered Mike LaFavore, editorial director at Meredith Magazines, speaking today at the Folio: Show in New York. "We'll always need editors," he said. "There is so much information clogging the Web."

Giving a spirited defense of the idea that editorial content remains central, LaFavore recounted his own unlikely coming of age as a connoisseur of the well-crafted magazine. Raised in a working class family, LaFavore collected magazines the way other boys collected baseball cards. After a few stray turns, including flunking out as a college English major and a 5-year stint as a truck driver, LaFavore found his footing in the magazine industry and created Men's Health, one of the most successful launches in history.

He acknowledged that the magazine landscape has changed drastically. Print is now only one of many media choices readers have. "The reader is in charge," LaFavore said. "Readers will get information any way they want it."

Advertisers, too, are trying to be in charge, exploiting their power to choose among many kinds of media. Magazines will face increasing pressure from advertisers, LaFavore said, to deliver packages of print and online opportunities.

Still, the magazine is anything but dead. "There are too many magazines, but there is always room for another good one," he said.

Creating the good ones, though, takes the hand of an editor with vision and integrity who will not compromise the magazine to gain an extra ad page or two. For example, while advertisers want younger readers, trying to alter the content of the magazine to change demographics never works, LaFavore said.

Neither does adding content that is peripheral to reader interest. He gave the example of magazines starting pet columns--to gain advertisers like Purina rather than to serve demonstrated reader interest.

He urged editors not to go after short-term fixes, but to stick with what resonates with readers. "If something works, keep doing it until it stops working," he said.

Perhaps because I worked in consumer publications for 20 years, I tend to reduce tasks to the level of coverlines on supermarket checkout stand magazines. The logic behind, say, the Men's Health teaser "Lose 30 Pounds in 3 Months!"--make any problem solvable in a simple way in a short period of time--can apply to anything.

For example, take the problem of getting our readers to care about what we association editors and publishers take great pains to produce.

Here's the coverline-format formula: README.

R: Make it Relevant

Readers want information that is immediately useful and practical in their professional lives. Recently I did a survey for an association magazine in which we asked what changes would make the title more useful. Endless variations of "make it practical" came up again and again. Readers asked for "Information that is applicable to the work setting," "Practical info we can use each day," and "Practical information or examples of how other professionals have used their skills."

E: Make it Enjoyable

Whether you are writing about high fashion, or a trade like construction or electronics, make it interesting. Readers simply don't connect with your message if they--excuse me while I yawn--are bored. Whatever the subject, inject peronality, use colorful quotes, rely on surprising statistics, and get rid of unneeded jargon. Write for the person who is reading in bed just before going to sleep. It's your job to keep him awake to the end of the article. When the readers snooze, you lose.

A: Make it Actionable

Readers should come away charged up to take a specific action to better their professional or personal lives. If they instead walk away with the thought, "That was interesting, but I can't see how it applies to me," or "It's interesting what that association is doing, but it would never work here," your publishing efforts, and the readers' time, have been wasted.

D: Make it Detailed

Often the most useful take-away messages from articles are the details about specific resources. Rather than talking in generalities, list Web sites, documents, telephone numbers, or guides that the reader can use right away in everyday practice. In the survey I mentioned above, the most common action taken after reading the magazine was to visit the association's or another Web site.

M: Make it Mission-related

If you write for the Journal of the Association of Poultry Coroners, then everything must relate to the improving the science of investigating dead chickens. Trends in feed or feathers might be interesting, but more appropriate to Feed and Feather Forum. Your association has a mission; let the publication advance it though every story.

E: Make it Evidence-based
With the Web, information is cheap these days. This is the first time in history when people who have essentially nothing to say and no effective way to say it can share their empty thoughts with the world. And do. There is a way to distinguish yourself from the sea of platitudes and opinion on the Web: present hard data and facts. The plural of anecdote remains data.

Once, anyone who truly cared about an industry had to belong to its trade association and read the association's magazine. Today, however, there are no such captive audiences. Competing information is everywhere. So if you want to keep your readers happy and coming back for more, nothing beats a publication that is relevant, enjoyable, actionable, detailed, mission-related, and backed by solid evidence.

Suppose you printed business cards, then buried them in the ground. Effectively, that is what too many associations are doing with their best calling cards--their publications.

A publication is often the most important strategic asset an association has. In many cases the primary or sole benefit of membership, association publications build member loyalty, convey and promote the association’s mission, position the association as an authority within its industry, support advocacy to legislators and regulators, and generate positive media coverage—all while returning net income to support association activities.

From the way associations tend to hide their publications on their Web pages, however, you might conclude that they are viewed as rather embarrassing problem children. Sometimes they are tucked in a drag-down menu for "Publications." Sometimes they are hidden away in a three-clicks deep list of member benefits. Sometimes they are stuck in a catch-all menu of "Resources."

Often, unless you know exactly where to look for a publication in the first place, good luck finding it. It's like looking for buried treasure without a map.

The reasons associations have for hiding their publications are many: not wanting the home page to appear too commercial or self-serving, wishing to emphasize other programs and services, or not wanting nonmembers to have much access to content. But all of the reasons add up to a waste of a great asset--the vehicle that best positions the association among its members, its industry, and the wider public.

It's time for publications to claim their rightful share of home page real estate. Putting a publication front and center need not mean pushing other programs aside. For example, The Arthritis Foundation (arthritis.org) has for years kept its award-winning magazine Arthritis Today prominent on its Web page without crowding out other educational or research programs. It can be done.

The reason it often isn't may be because publications professionals have a limited role in crafting association Web pages. That should change. Association editors and publishers need to become squeakier wheels, even to the point of being pushy and, yes, even obnoxious. The entire association suffers when it spends tens or hundred of thousands of dollars to create a magazine, then buries it in a forgetten corner of its Web site.