iNorden launched a month and a half ago, which means that it so far is everything but what it’s intended to be (well, we’re beginning to get an idea, but…). That very much applies to the design, too, although I think we’re onto something, in terms of framework — and the way we’re about to organise the site (sections with dedicated section fronts are in the making).

We’ve decided that, for now, we don’t want ads on our site, simply beacause we think it’d be devastating for our credibility. Too many mainstream media corporations have ventured into civic journalism in order to profit on the hype — financially.

Should we at any time consider allowing ads, it would have to be because we’d need to make money in order to practice citizen journalism, not practicing citizen journalism in order to make money, as is the case in the established media.

As for improved positioning, you’re spot on. We need it desperately. It’s all a little Catch 22-ish, really, that on one hand we’re unwilling to generate an income, while on the other, we could really use funds for marketing purposes. When it comes to positioning content-wise, I think you’d find there’s plenty of that in the national editions (www.iNorden.dk, http://www.iNorden.no and http://www.iNorden.se), where most of what is considered citizen journalism is found, whereas the international edition serves as a means of providing Nordic news to a foreign audience only, as such an offer is in effect non-existing elsewhere. Surely, there are various national news outlets in English, but none representing the Nordic region — or Scandinavia — as such. Which is why very little of what might be considered traditional citizen journalism is found in that particular edition, which, I take it, is the only edition you’ve been able to review — given the other editions’ language(s).

There’s yet a dimension to iNorden.org, apart from promoting citizen journalism in the region; namely that of creating a common Nordic ground of sorts, as there have been no alternatives in that respect either.

Finally, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this. The thing is: We haven’t, so far, been able to mobilise a correspondent corps for the international edition — which probably explains some of its obvious shortcomings, as of yet. We’d be overjoyed if anyone out there would be interested.

But for now: Thanks a million for an interesting review — and a very merry Christmas to you and your readers.

iNorden launched a month and a half ago, which means that it so far is everything but what it’s intended to be (well, we’re beginning to get an idea, but…). That very much applies to the design, too, although I think we’re onto something, in terms of framework — and the way we’re about to organise the site (sections with dedicated section fronts are in the making).

We’ve decided that, for now, we don’t want ads on our site, simply beacause we think it’d be devastating for our credibility. Too many mainstream media corporations have ventured into civic journalism in order to profit on the hype — financially.

Should we at any time consider allowing ads, it would have to be because we’d need to make money in order to practice citizen journalism, not practicing citizen journalism in order to make money, as is the case in the established media.

As for improved positioning, you’re spot on. We need it desperately. It’s all a little Catch 22-ish, really, that on one hand we’re unwilling to generate an income, while on the other, we could really use funds for marketing purposes. When it comes to positioning content-wise, I think you’d find there’s plenty of that in the national editions (www.iNorden.dk, http://www.iNorden.no and http://www.iNorden.se), where most of what is considered citizen journalism is found, whereas the international edition serves as a means of providing Nordic news to a foreign audience only, as such an offer is in effect non-existing elsewhere. Surely, there are various national news outlets in English, but none representing the Nordic region — or Scandinavia — as such. Which is why very little of what might be considered traditional citizen journalism is found in that particular edition, which, I take it, is the only edition you’ve been able to review — given the other editions’ language(s).

Finally, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this. The thing is: We haven’t, so far, been able to mobilise a correspondent corps for the international edition — which probably explains some of its obvious shortcomings, as of yet. We’d be overjoyed if anyone out there would be interested.

But for now: Thanks a million for an interesting review — and a very merry Christmas to you and your readers.