The rise of the amateurs

Amateurism

What's the difference between a rookie and an amateur? Both might mean the same thing, but they are slightly different. A rookie is somebody who is trained in a field, but they lack the experience. An amateur is a beginner who is just starting out in a field, with a little prior knowledge. Sites like Wikipedia has given amateurs a chance to shine along with the professionals. The organization does not have to employ these writers, so the site is made out of volunteers.

Wiki might be saving money, but some of the information being spread on the site is not accurate. These authors might be teenagers leading or misleading readers. This balances the board experts and the amateurs stand on. According to Marshall Poe, he states that the info amateurs post is not exactly knowledge; it's common knowledge. Street smarts can pass for common knowledge. For example, in the movie "Slum Dog Millionaire" an uneducated peasant wins the Who wants to be a Millionaire contest. He was arrested because he answered every question right. Teachers, lawyers, and doctors lose all the time on the show. These are people that are educated. So they thought the peasant cheated.

This is the case between experts and non-experts. This is equivalent to buying material from any market. A Sony radio will work just like a regular radio. If you want to purchase the Sony radio based on expertise, you will have to pay more. Buying a regular radio is going to be less and it will still work. As long as either radio works, there shouldn't be a problem. The same thing goes for information that is right. Should it matter where the information came from? As long as it answers questions correctly, I think the voice of the amateurs belong in the digital world.

Citizen Journalists

A non journalist can be a journalist without a degree. If I saw an article posted by non journalist, I would assume that they got their report from another source. In the ideal world, a journalist has access to places that civilians don't. They have permits, badges, and special parking privileges that allow them to report to us. They are reporting real events as they happen. They are risking their life to feed the mini tape recorders and note pads.

If a non journalist is relying on the internet for information, then this is not journalism. But if they encountered an event; they would write the whole truth. A journalist takes orders, and they will edit information to cover the truth. They have information that people depend on daily. As long as their credited as a journalist, I think their words hold more power than the non journalist.

According to Al Saracevic, he states that "bloggers don't go to jail for their work." This means that you can blog about government secrets and nothing will happen to you. But as a journalist, they have to abide by the Journalistic Code. Failure to do so can put him or her in a pool of trouble. This separates the real from the phonies. In this case, degrees and expertise does matter. There is a structure that goes for journalism. How would you know this structure if you have never learned how to report news effectively?