The paper is focused on the cultural consequences of a new technological opportunity in mass communication. The Internet has given two billion people a technical means of authorship. It is a real explosion of authorship: In all previous history of mankind there, probably, have been about 200-300 million authors. The emancipation of authorship explains (better than technological innovations) all other changes in the public life, connected with the new communicative environment. The new environment, in which any person from the audience can be an author, develops its own mechanism for creating public significance. The paper describes the structure and functioning of this mechanism, named the Viral Editor, as a ubiquitous and dispersed creature of the Internet which consists of people-users who all now have gotten rights to compose, edit and spread any facts and opinions in any form and shape.
Keywords: emancipation of authorship, self-publishing audience, man as media, death of newspapers, Viral Editor
Emancipation of authorship has caused the appearance of self-publishing audience and new types of publishers: man as media, celebrity as media, and brand as media. First-born media are vanishing in a crowd of amateurs who have the same rights for publication as first-born media. The emancipation of authorship (not just a transition from paper to digital) will eventually lead not only to death of newspapers, but also, possibly, to a decline of an epoch of legacy media as a separate public institution.
Explosion of Authorship
How many public authors has mankind had (If by author we understand the person who is able to publish their ideas for an unlimited circle of people)?
Google Books project digitizes all books. According to Taycher (2010), software engineer for Google, in August 2010, Google Books has counted up that for all history of mankind the 129,864,880 books have been published. It is possible to find the figure in other source: The researchers could count 39 million scientific articles which had been published in scientific journals from the beginning of a XIX century (el Aisati, Borner, & Zoss, 2011). It is not the number of authors, but it gives an idea about a degree of this number. Probably, it is possible to speak about comparable quantity of journalists for 400 years of media activity. It is obvious that during earlier periods of time the quantity of authors was not sizeable and did not influence on calculations.
The accurate account of authors is impossible, but these quantitative reference points indicate that mankind has had, maybe, 200-300 million authors for all history. It is rather rough calculation, but it shows the historical scale of authorship: about 300 million authors for 6,000 years of a writing civilization.
Nowadays, more than two billion users are connected to the Internet (Reuters, 2010). All of them have received technical possibility of authorship. In October 2011, the world population surpassed seven billion people (Reuters, 2011). Suppose the Internet coverage can reach 80% of the population (the developed countries come nearer to this level). So, the next decade or two the quantity of people, having access to technical authorship, can reach six billion persons.
This is the real explosion of authorship. In a historical moment the quantity of authors has grown approximately 10 times at a ratio to all quantity of authors for all history. Now we are approximately in the middle of this explosion. Thanks to the further distribution of the Internet to natural limits the quantity of authors should grow in two to three times — from two to approximately six billion.
Speaking about the influence of the Internet on a society, observers usually estimate the speed of circulation or availability of information. But the main change, which is the basis of all other transformations, is a momentary grandiose emancipation of authorship. The Internet is just a technological revolution. Explosion of authorship is a cultural revolution which will change all spheres of public life: politics, culture, mass-media, etc.
We can find the similar periods of human history connected with explosive emancipation of a text.
The first emancipation of text was associated with appearance of Demotic and then — phonetic script in the ancient world. It was the emancipation of written language. It stopped being the monopoly of Palaces and Temples. At the same time there was downfall of Old Kingdoms because the monopoly on script was an important condition of sanctity of authority institutions (power, religion).
The second emancipation of text deals with the invention of printing press by Johannes Gutenberg. It was the emancipation of reading. Books (first of all, the Bible) became affordable to the mass. The monopoly on text, which the old institutions of authority had, was destroyed again. Then there was the Reformation, the downfall of old states, political and industrial revolutions, golden age of science and education. The modern society was formed.
In the same context we can consider the third emancipation of text. This time — the emancipation of authorship.
If the historical analogies are right, so the third emancipation of text — the emancipation of authorship — is able to destroy the old institutions of authority. In this case we will face with cataclysms which will be comparable with the same ones of the Antique world after the emancipation of script, and the Medieval Europe after reading emancipation. Each time the emancipation of text forces a society to shed its old form like a snake sheds its skin.
Four Sorts of Publicators
Old authors have been separated from audience by access to means of publication. They needed a sanction of s
ociety or power to be authors. New authors do not have this threshold. They have technical possibility, and they do not need a sanction any more.
Certainly, it is technical authors — they receive only possibility; they do not receive talent and passion. We can name them publicators. But, anyway, the quantity of publicators will be made equal to quantity of readers. Self-publishing audience is arisen. It is an absolutely new type of person and a new class of a society, unknown earlier.
Self-publishing audience changes a habitual landscape of production and distribution of the mass information. There are a lot of consequences, not only in media, but also in the politics and other spheres. First of all, a new subject is absolutely unknown. We know what audience is. But now people, Formerly Known as the Audience (Rosen, 2006), became media. We know nothing about them, being them.
Who are they — these two billion publicators? What do they want? How will they influence society which will entirely consist of them after one more historical moment?
It is possible to suggest the classification which consists of four groups of publicators: man as media; celebrity as media; brand as media; first-born media.
Man as Media
Two billion publicators are all of us. The huge army of gadgetted talkers possesses incomprehensible quantity of soldiers and generals, but also produces new qualities of communications.
For example, everything that can be learned by one will be surely learned by others. And as somebody from two billion surely possesses any special data, so all together possess any data.
Two billion publicators give rise to the environment of collective media self-service which is capable to inform itself about everything that is interested in. Self-publishing audience reaches itself with accuracy of 100% inconceivable quality of targeting for old mass-media.
However, amazement of this grandiose phenomenon should not shield the sensible estimations from area of human mentality. In a reality not all and not always want to be authors. There are not many hard, initial authors, actually.
Therefore, the global providers of the Internet, who have emancipated the authorship, optimize and automate it now. Providers create services of lazy authorship. Now it is possible to spend magic gift (easily and simply) on pressing the buttons like, share, repost, vote, etc.. These services utilize the surplus of author’s freedom and drive lazy authors back in audience.
The new audience is formed of those who feel difficulty to be the author, who are agree to be only the appraiser and the distributor. This audience will be fickle, interactive, with own author’s claims. But it will give superiority to true authors — not because of a threshold of access, but because of laziness.
But even if the overwhelming majority will be utilized by services of lazy authorship, the quantity of the remained hard authors will be so great that it will easily exceed all previous authors’ stock of mankind. It would be interesting to calculate a new balance of hard authors and new audience, and also to learn conditions for excitation of interactive audience to a level of author’s activity.
Celebrity as Media
This group includes politicians, art and cultural personalities, sportsmen, show-business stars.
Certainly, celebrities have much to gain from emancipation of authorship. They have received the alternative publicity which can be used without mass-media. Celebrities’ dependence on mass media has sharply decreased. But also here there are costs: the simplicity of access conducts to devaluation of status. So, the class of celebrities should search for a new balance between value and availability.
Private publicator is an amateur. But celebrities-as-media already show a sort of professionalism. Hired professionals work on public image of prominent celebrities in the Internet.
Brand as Media
As a matter of fact, corporations do not create anything, but only content. Production of goods is forced out somewhere on periphery of the present. The corporation task is to collect under the brand the target audience (consumers, officials, investors, partners). Certainly, it is a media task.
Corporations-as-media have two main qualities. Firstly, they have a resource, and they should not think of a recoupment of the media expenses. Secondly, corporations are initially adjusted on professional type of activity. Therefore they buy media professionals from old mass-media.
If private publicators compete with mass-media by means of huge coverage of themes and speed of viral distribution (that is already appreciable), so corporations will compete with mass-media by means of budgets and growing media professionalism (it is still imperceptible but inevitable).
Old media’s trump card is media professionalism. Others are only studying, journalists already are able. The second trump card is a habit of society.
It is easy to see that both factors are subjected to time influence. The habit of society to consume mass-media has been shrinking. And training of all other publicators occurs quickly.
Mass-media can be modernized somehow, finding the most brilliant editorial and business decisions. But all intraspecific mutations do not cancel a one simple fact: mass-media are not lonely any more in media space. It is a crowd there now. Crowd and cloud. The Former Audience Joins the Party — Dan Gilmor writes in the book We the Media (Gilmor, 2004). Here it is more exact diagnosis: Two billion people formerly known as the audience join to the community formerly known as the media. The monopoly of mass-media has ended.
When classical mass-media find out themselves not in their own temple, but in a crowd of amateurs, they, naturally, feel shock. Many mass-media will die out. At least, the death of printed media is inevitable. Others will serve those who need the professional channel of messages’ delivery. The strongest mass-media, possibly, will turn to any other business with a strong media component (all kinds of business are moving to this direction, but only from the other side).
It is not necessary to perceive these forecasts as apocalyptical. After all, what do we want from media: to be an institute or a function? So, function remains. It even blossoms incredibly.
And demand for media skills will reach billion requests. Schools of journalism may exult. It is not an apocalypse: the end of epoch is always the beginning of new one.
The Emancipation of Private Opinion
Changes in structure of media institutes are not sole consequence of authorship emancipation. Cardinal changes occur in culture of public opinion’s development. Earlier it was a point of media as mediators. Now mediators are not necessary. Self-publishing public produces public opinion immediately.
Certainly, representing huge mass of private opinions, first of all we think about their quality. And we consider this quality bad. This is true, partly.
Eighty years ago José Ortega y Gasset suggested in The revolt of the masses the thesis that the 19th century gave mass-man not only well-being, but representation about well-being as a life standard. It was a radical change. The ordinary persons suddenly received the right to demand well-being which in the Middle Ages was not guaranteed even for the nobility. Mass-man felt a reliability of the world and personal independence. After the free expansion of his vital desires, and therefore, of his personality occurred, Spoilt-child phenomenon appeared: The young child exposed to this regime has no experience of its own limits…. (Ortega y Gasset, 1930, chapter VI, para. 9). And, at last, there was… a right to an opinion on the matter without previous effort to work one out for themselves (Ortega y Gasset, 1930, chapter VIII, para. 2). By the way, Ortega y Gasset connects the growth of mass-man’s claims with swift growth of the population in Europe in the XIX-th century from 180 million to 460 million.
What would he tell now when two billion people, thanks to the simple fact of connection to the Internet, have received an equal right to be an author? And without any necessity to substantiate this right in contrast to unfortunate 300 million old authors did it before.
Equality of judgements and freedom of connection eliminate the idea of formal authority which the previous form of a society always keeps on.
The more publicators, the further the free, unlimited authorship extends downward — to a bottom of a social pyramid. There is improbable horizontal, vertical and any diagonal mobility of communications. Everybody and everything are available for everyone. Huge mass of the people who used to work out their own judgements only in a circle of their physical contacts, now de facto declare… a right to an opinion on the matter without previous effort to work one out for themselves.
Politicians, making advances to people for the sake of support on elections, stimulate this ordinary people’s confidence in having the right to private, but public judgement on any question. Even if this judgement is not supported by education or reflections. The historically unprecedented stream of raw opinions flooded, because it became possible. Who will introduce proper order in this stream and will specify authoritative reference points?
There is a remarkable reflection of well-known Russian theatre director Evgeny Grishkovets who has run away from blogs Live Journal because of familiarity of casual contacts. “I can’t bear that easy availability which the Internet and my presence in LiveJournal give… . I don’t want and I can’t be a one of buttons of some panel which can be pressed by any interested person who will overcome all conceivable distances and will appeal to me in any form, with any words, questions, claims, anger or hatred” (Grishkovets, 2011).
It would seem that the access to publication without preliminary selection means the triumph of anarchy and chaos. And in terms of information — the triumph of cacophony and noise. Yes, we face noise, too. However, the environment of free authorship has the built-in mechanism of the selection of the significance, which compensates the destruction of formal authorities and reference points.
Thinking of a large quantity of publicators, we, of course, imagine noise and trash. But it is a myth. In reality nobody consumes a trash. Firstly, technical tools allow us to build any filters with the help of list of friends and browser bookmarks. And secondly, the mechanism of the Viral Editor selects and delivers us that which we are interested in, thanks to the system of friend recommendations.
What does it mean — The mechanism of the Viral Editor? Here it is made an attempt to describe this mechanism in the special manifesto.
The Creature of the Internet: 12 Theses About the Viral Editor
1. Physiology of the Viral Editor
1.1. The Viral Editor is a dispersed Creature of the Internet, sort of an Artificial Intelligence where the people-users become resolving chips.
1.2. When an occasional user finds something interesting, he filters information in his own way according to his own idea of interestingness. And then the user publishes information so that to attract an attention.
1.3. It is the same how the editor does it. But user-editor wants a little bit more to gain a response to his own personality.
1.3.1. The response is the main goal of the user, even if the user is not conscious it. Desire for response produces a motivation for the whole system. Such motivation, which in itself is individually weak, has strong impacts on a large scale and fuels the performance of the whole Viral Editor system.
1.3.2. That is why it works and it works with no money and no control, it works better than for money or by fiat.
1.4. Finding something interesting and wishing to gain a response, the user attempts to contaminate others with that interest. In case of success the user really contaminates others, and they do the same.
1.5. If a number of those contaminated is large enough, an epidemic of interest in a certain topic breaks out. Users involve, edit, share.
1.5.1. That is why this mechanism could be named the Viral Editor.
1.6. The Viral Editor ensures not only the data for spreading by one to others but also crystallizes common significance for the whole community of those contaminated. It also provides the selection of the best wording.
1.7. The epidemic of micro-edits generates social significance directly and immediately (without intermediaries, without mass media) on a community level or in society as a whole.
2. Neurophysiology of Viral Editor
2.1. The Viral Editor is similar to a neural network.
2.2. Every knot-user may produce zero or nonzero response to the information. Nonzero response can be specified (in a simplified way) by five modes: reply comment, re-post, re-post with comment, retelling with a link and additions, retelling with a link and reduction.
2.3. The human brain contains (roughly) 100 billion neurons each of which can have 15-20 degrees of freedom and up to ten thousand connections with other neurons. For the sake of simplicity the number of possible system configurations can be called Infinity, it is much greater than the number of elementary particles in the Universe.
2.4. The Russian Viral Editor has (roughly) 40 million users and each of them can have five modes and can be connected to any other user. The number of possible configurations is much less than the “Infinity” from para. 2.3, but it is still much greater than the number of particles in the Universe.
2.4.1. Out of five user modes the two ones are considered indefinite, they are: retelling with additions and retelling with reductions (it is not quite clear what exactly is added or reduced). This brings variability of the system outside countability.
2.5. Responding to stimuli, the human brain forms different-size neuron ensembles to generate thinking. The same is the behavior of the Viral Editor that gathers “neuron” ensembles spontaneously and on important public issues.
2.6. The principal difference between the Viral Editor and the human brain consists in the Viral Editor ability to fix its own historic states that make up a special Viral Editor backup memory that is available at any moment and from any moment.
3. Viral Editor Improves Humans
3.1. Human’s behavior in the Viral Editor is precisely the opposite of human’s behavior in a crowd.
3.1.1. The crowd frees human’s herd instinct and deprives an individual of his personality. In the Viral Editor environment a user is, on the contrary, eager to get a response to his own individuality — his assessment, his view of things.
3.2. While editing their piece of information every person faces an imaginary audience. Those involved in the Viral Editor inevitably cultivate their individuality but in forms approved by the community.
3.3. Viral Editor is a new form of positive socialization of a personality. In marginal cases users are able to gain a response by means of perversions. But statistical majority of users want to correspond with the criteria approved by the majority.
3.4. This does not mean that every person in Viral Editor is good. It means that a statistical human in Viral Editor tries to be better a little.
3.5. In any case the original quality of human material tells on the final quality of viral edit.
4. Viral Editor Improves Itself
4.1. To participate in the viral editing users should be able to perform a variety of complex intellectual operations. They should be able: (1) to read, (2) to understand, (3) to appraise, (4) to write, (5) to add their desire (even for the re-posting).
4.1.2. In this way the Viral Editor “checks” user’s private access to the system at the very entrance. A person who is not qualified enough will not be able to join viral editing.
4.2. Having joined the viral editing, a statistical human activates the sociality mode and is guided by socially approved criteria (see thesis 3), thus he not only improves himself but he also improves the overall quality of the viral editing.
4.3. Viral editor implies pure freedom of private response. Otherwise, it will not work. Inspired, biased or paid out response is quite possible, but in a statistical array it ranks among those exposed and destroyed by the inevitably superior number of free responses. If the lie is significant, the Viral Editor will check and disclose it.
4.3.1. If the lie is insignificant, the Viral Editor will not find it out but will not spread it either. The more significant the lie appears the stronger fact-checking is.
4.3.2. So throw-ins into the Viral Editor die out or they are severely unmasked. The Viral Editor possesses a self-cleaning tool.
4.3.3. Every example of lie on the Internet, actually, is an example of disclosure of this lie.
4.4. Incidental or far different views fall out of the mainstream opinion of the Viral Editor. If not — they are not incidental.
4.5. The practical outcome of theses 3 and 4 is the following: the Viral Editor improves the morals and intellectual quality of public topics on the Internet.
5. Viral Editor Kills a Reporter
5.1. Bloggers are scattered along the surface of the globe. They are concentrated in places where important public events are more often produced and more actively consumed.
5.1.1. So Viral Editor has its staff reporters everywhere when things happen.
5.2. Any private or public event can be described by a blogger, become the focus of attention of the Viral Editor and even reach the level of social importance.
5.3. Viral Editor staff reporters are not only everywhere but they are also there at a time. An important event is described by a blogger before a reporter arrives on the scene, because the blogger is already there.
5.4. As a result mass media with ever increasing frequency use blogger information and not journalistic stories. Journalism has lost the monopoly for the news. The profession of the news-reporter is doomed.
6. Guerrilla Journalism of Viral Editor
6.1. The Viral Editor can provide a collective guerrilla expertise of any issue and of any level of quality.
6.1.1. There are bloggers whose civic consciousness is high enough and rather often it is them who have greater traffic. Such bloggers raise the topics of prime social significance, analyze aspects about which they consider themselves knowledgeable.
6.1.2. Significant topic involves all the users concerned including those well-informed to discuss it. The Viral Editor disposes of knowledge of any kind, coverage and depth. It has witnesses and experts of any level of competence.
6.1.3. Participants in the discussion examine the subject, share every possible opinion including valuable ones.
6.1.4. Even those who make much noise during the commenting (and usually such are the majority) — even they are useful to the Viral Editor because they help to maintain the rate at which the topic infection spreads.
6.1.5. The most valuable evidence and opinions are sublimated, take the most vivid wording and are disseminated immediately by participants themselves. This is how guerrilla (or citizen) journalism appears.
6.2. In many cases expertise of the equal level of quality and quantity of involved experts, eyewitnesses and other volunteers is impossible in the traditional mass media.
6.3. This results in the fact that journalism is deprived of the monopoly for analytics and opinions. A thousand of journalists is losing to a million of bloggers.
7. Viral Editor as Provider of Free Content
7.1. Physical and topical omnipresence of bloggers lays the foundation of the Viral Editor. As there are a lot of bloggers they develop, by accident but without fail, many topics including significant ones.
7.2. The Viral Editor extracts, selects and distributes significant information free of charge.
7.2.1. The Viral Editor has a great many of man-hours at its disposal. Millions of bloggers are in a constant search for significant topics, events, comments, wordings, for the sake a response.
7.2.2. Hence the Viral Editor is able to detect anything. Significant topics, if they are really significant, get in the focus of public attention.
7.3. What journalism does on purpose, the Viral Editor does by chance but it does it without fail and inevitably.
7.4. The Viral Editor will not miss an important topic. If a topic is not covered by the Viral Editor it means this topic is either not socially significant or not found by the Viral Editor staff reporters yet.
7.4.1. The topics not found by the users or those that did not overcome the epidemic threshold of significance produce the Internet noise. The noise usually dominates but thanks to the mechanism of sublimation of significance the Viral Editor can eliminate noises, not out of the Internet but out of consumption.
7.5. Thanks to the Viral Editor a user cannot but learn about socially significant information. It will reach him one way or another.
7.5.1. Thanks to the Viral Editor a user is bound to find information he is looking for. It is sure to be contained in the backup memory of the Viral Editor.
7.5.2. Consequently the socially important information in the Internet grows all by itself. We do not surf the Internet anymore, now the Internet surfs us. You do not need to obtain or to buy it as during the era of monopoly journalism.
7.5.3. In future those will pay for the content who wants to distribute it, and not those who want to get it.
7.6. The work of the Viral Editor is a main reason of free content for consumers. Another reason is the increasing activity of information providers.
7.6.1. The attempts of some mass media to sell content in the Internet on paid subscription have no chance to succeed. It is possible to continue but too late to start.
8. Viral Editor Has No Will
8.1. Freedom of personal response is one of the vital sources of the Viral Editor. The Viral Editor is just a side-effect of viral distribution of information through the net of filters that can change information individually but are tuned for each other. The Viral Editor has no special purpose of its own.
8.2. The will of all those involved in the Viral Editor does not turn into a general will of the Viral Editor. The Viral Editor has no will. It is only will is to exist and nothing more.
8.3. Viral Editor does not imply any coordination principles. The Viral Editor has no taboos. The Viral Editor has no control center.
8.4. The Viral Editor has no location. The Viral Editor does not belong to anyone.
9. The Viral Editor Is Reactive
9.1. Having no will and no control center the Viral Editor has no identity.
9.1.2. That is why the Viral Editor activity is vegetative. The Viral Editor reacts only to the events which happened.
9.2. The Viral Editor is reactive, while a human editor is proactive.
10. Viral Editor Does Not Foresee the Future
10.1. If nothing happens the Viral Editor has nothing to react to. The Viral Editor proves impossible in case nothing has happened. It does not have a forecasting attitude to the events to be reported, as it has no will. The Viral Editor is dead as regards the future.
11. Viral Editor Has Deprived Mass Media of All Except Navigation in the Future and Panoramic Agenda
11.1. The Viral Editor has destroyed the mass media monopoly on production of news, analytics, opinion, as well as on mass and operative dissemination of information. The Viral Editor has deprived the mass media of monopoly on providing benchmarks because it has learnt to create social importance doing it not worse and sometimes even better than professional editorial offices.
11.2. The mass media retain only two functions that the Viral Editor will never be able to take away. They are navigation in the future and compression of the world picture to the size of small panoramic agenda.
11.3. Forecasting the future requires will, it is not discernible for the Viral Editor but can be perceived by the human editor.
11.3.1. Having conceded the past and the present to the Viral Editor, journalism can preserve authority for the future events and use its advantage — presence of will.
11.3.2. Landmarks on the maps of the future make the best of social navigation because in terms of time compression no one needs journalistic navigation in the past.
11.4. Panoramic agenda is also an exclusive competence of a mass media editor and not of the Viral Editor.
11.4.1. The Viral Editor supplies the most significant and interesting topics but cannot provide users with a panoramic view. In the blogosphere, to see the picture of the world users have to read all the blogs. In mass media picture of the world is compressed and available for a five minute consumption.
11.4.2. Mass media compress the big picture of the world to the size of a compact round-up agenda using a simple pattern “Politics/Business/Culture/Society/Accidents/Sport”. Media editors fill each of the pattern sections even if the events are not top-rated. Mass media commits to fill up every section and this remains one of the last unique advantages of mass media.
12. Viral Editor Is a New Form of Social Contract
12.1. Selection and reprint of posts is a kind of voting for the significance of those pieces of information (and voter can improve a ballot immediately in the voting booth). Repost is the simplest and the most accessible way of civic engagement.
12.2. The turnout in the Viral Editor is accidental but 100% representative. Topical epidemics in the Viral Editor serve as referendums, as instant forms of direct democracy.
12.3. The opinion of the majority in the Viral Editor is not a binding order but it creates such magnitudes of social gravity that can affect real events.
12.4. The Viral Editor is a new mechanism of virtual Social Contract — a self-shaping consensus of masses on the key issues of social life.
12.4.1. The Viral Editor does not deal with political problems. It deals with anything including ultimate rubbish. But the most important topics in the Viral Editor surely relate to the issues of social life, because social issues promise the user the biggest response.
12.5. If the authorities press free reactions out, the Viral Editor absorbs these reactions and gains stimulus to radicalize freedom of expression. Under the circumstances the Viral Editor statistically inevitably goes in opposition to the government (even with a noticeable number of authority’s guardians — voluntary or hired ones).
12.5.1. Having no will, no control center, no purpose or location the Viral Editor is uncontrollable.
12.6. A long-lasting coexistence of a Viral Editor and a non-democratic government is impossible if the same human material is involved. Free access to self-made significance take people away from authoritarian State, and the competition starts. When the volume of users reaches certain thresholds, the Viral Editor is bound to destroy the non-democratic power that pretends to influence these same people.
12.6.1. This does not mean that the Viral Editor is able to create something to replace it.
el Aisati, M., Borner, K., & Zoss, A. M. (2011, March 8). Genealogy of science according to scopus. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/best-science-maps/?utm_source=UniBul&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&pid=1052
Gillmor, D. (2004). We the Media, chapter 7. Retrieved from http://www.authorama.com/we-the-media-8.html
Grishkovets, E. (2011). Open space. Retrieved from http://www.openspace.ru/news/details/20611/
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1930). The revolt of the masses. Retrieved from http://www.globalchristians.org/politics/DOCS/Ortega%20y%20Gasset%20-%20The%20Revolt%20Of%20The%20Masses.pdf
Reuters. (2010, October 19). Internet users to exceed two billion this year. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/19/us-telecoms-internet-idUSTRE69I24720101019
Reuters. (2011, May 3). World population to pass 7 billion on October 31: U.N. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-un-population-idUSTRE7426GI20110503
Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Huffingtonpost. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-people-formerly-known_1_b_24113.html
Taycher, L. (2010, August 5). Books of the world, stand up and be counted! All 129,864,880 of you. Retrieved from http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand-up-and-be-counted.html
Andrey Miroshnichenko – media-analyst, Head of the School of the Effective Text, author of When newspapers will die («Когда умрут газеты», 2011).
In Russian the part of theses has been published in Chastny Correspondent in December 2010. Retrieved from http://www.chaskor.ru/article/sushchestvo_interneta_21588. Chastny Correspondent supports Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Journalism and Mass Communication, Volume 2, Number 2, February 2012 (Serial Number 5)
David Publishing Company, www.davidpublishing.com
- Guide to Google Authorship (socialmediatoday.com)
- Authorship and AuthorRank in the Post Panda SEO Landscape (covario.com)
- Ultimate list of Google Authorship resources (raventools.com)
- Will AuthorRank atomise your publishing brand into individual journalists? (onemanandhisblog.com)