Here are some thoughts on what a truly transparent media organization would do.

1. Show who we are

Upside: Readers know who to contact. The organization is revealed as a collection of diverse individuals, not just a brand, an editor and some writers.

Risk: Competitors know who to poach; PR people spam us even more than usual.

2. Show what we’re working on

Upside: Tap the wisdom of crowds

Risk: Tip off competitors(although I’d argue that this would just as likely freeze them; after all the prior art would be obvious to all); Risks “scooping ourselves”,robbing the final product of freshness.

3. “Process as Content”

Upside: Open participation can make stories better–better researched, better thought through and deeper. It also can crowdsource some of the work of the copy desk and editors. And once the story is done and published, the participants have a sense of collective ownership that encourages them to spread the word.

Risk:Curating the process can quickly hit diminishing returns. Writers end up feeling like a cruise director, constantly trying to get people to participate. And all the other risks of the item above.

4. Privilege the crowd

Upside: Maximizes participation.

Risk: If we don’t deploy voting tools or (sigh) a login system, trolls may rule.

5. Let readers decide what’s best

Upside: A front page that reflects reader interest better.

Risk: A more predictable and lowbrow front page.

6. Wikify everything

Upside: Stories live and grow, remaining relevant long after their original publication (at no cost to us!)

Risk: Stories get progressively less coherent as many cooks mess with them. Whatever brand authority the Wired name brings is diminished over time as the stories become less and less our own work.