Over at BlueOregon blog, Kari Chishom posits a theory about why the Oregonian, which just announced 37 new layoffs, is dying. (See below for a summary.) Of course, at WikiProject Oregon, we’re often focused on a different (but not wholly unrelated) issue: the Oregonian’s unwillingness to develop a web site worthy of the modern Internet reader’s attention.

Kari points to the publisher’s inefficient set of offerings for potential advertisers:

Yesterday’s announcement of first-ever newsroom layoffs at the Oregonian included this statement:

The Oregonian, like all newspapers, has endured declining revenues the past few years, the result of the recession and the migration of advertising to the Internet.

That latter excuse, to be frank, is crap.

The Oregonian newsroom folks who were laid off – and those that have survived – deserve to know that OregonLive.com is running an online advertising operation that is so bad that there can only be one explanation: They’re actually trying to earn less ad revenue.

What do you think? Add your comments on the BlueOregon thread.

Space NeedleA neighbor up in Seattle has published a story about his experiences as a Wikipedia contributor. Apparently he worked to get the Seattle, Washington article up to Featured status, among other projects.

This is a great window into the mind of a regular Wikipedia editor. Also nice news to me — I often wonder why there aren’t more Washingtonians working on Wikipedia (or at least, organized in any way I can recognize). So it’s great to see that they’re out there. Maybe some day we’ll find better ways to build some virtual “bridges” across the Columbia, and work together more effectively.

One unfortunate thing, though — this article is one of many where the author exposes some of the cool stuff about Wikipedia, but also explains how he ultimately got frustrated and mostly left the project. I’m always sad to hear about this, and also sad that the frustration gets so much play in the media. Not to deny Benjamin his point of view — I’m sure his reasons were perfectly legitimate. But I also wonder how many content Wikipedia editors are just too busy writing Wikipedia articles, to write up articles for the mainstream media about their more positive experiences.

Their (our) point of view is an important one too…hopefully that perspective will get a little more play through blogs like this one.

Hat tip to Kari Chisholm of Mandate Media and BlueOregon.com, thanks for pointing this article out!