Just contributed the post below, explaining social journalism, to Wikipedia. Let’s see if it survives their ruthless editing and deletion process. As one of my suggestions for social journalism is the deletion of weak content, it would be suitably ironic if this fate befalls the entry.
Social Journalism is a media model consisting of a hybrid of professional journalism, contributor and reader content. It is similar to open publishing platforms, like Twitter and WordPress.com, except that some or most content is also created and/or screened by professional journalists. Examples include Forbes.com, Medium, BuzzFeed and Gawker. The model, which in some instances has generated monthly audiences in the tens of millions, has been discussed as one way for professional journalism to thrive.
Writing in Re/Code, Jonathan Glick, CEO of Sulia, said the model of publishers as platforms (which he calls a “platisher”) is “on the rise.” Glick cites as examples Medium (from Twitter co-founders Ev Williams and Biz Stone), Vox Media, Sulia, Skift, First Look Media (backed by Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar) and BuzzFeed.
In an interview in the New York Times, the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, said the Guardian was in the process of converting into a platform as well as a publisher. “For years, news organizations had a quasi monopoly on information simply because we had the means of distribution. I think if as a journalist you are not intensely curious about what has been created by people who are not journalists, then you’re missing out on a lot,” he said.
On April 1, 2014, in a column in GigOm entitled “Social journalism and open platforms are the new normal — now we have to make them work” Mathew Ingram asked “How can media entities take advantage of this phenomenon without losing their way in the process?” and proceeded to review suggested rules for social journalism proposed by former FastCompany.com president Ed Sussman, an early adopter of the model. Ingram summarized Sussman’s suggestions, including clear labeling types of contributors (e.g. staff, guest contributor, reader contribution); establishing guidelines, such as conflict of interest rules, that posters must consent to before posting; providing wiki-like tools for social improvements to content; elevating the best content with curators and algorithms; deleting weak or problematic content via curators or algorithms.
Social journalism has been attacked by media critic Michael Wolff in U.S.A. today as the “Forbes vanity model letting ‘contributors’ write whatever they want under your brand (‘as I wrote in Forbes …’) and not having to pay them anything — ultimately, of course, devaluing your authority.” 
In a March 20, 2014 Op Ed for the New York Observer, former FastCompany.com president Ed Sussman argued that social journalism does not devalue the authority of brands and that the success of Forbes.com in attracting a wide audience with its 1,000+ bloggers proved that the model could be successful for traditional media companies. Following revelations that some Forbes.com contributors used their columns to allegedly participate in a “pump and dump” scheme to promote, then sell stocks, Sussman followed up with “The New Rules of Social Journalism: A Proposal” in Pando Daily, on March 29, 2014. Sussman proposed various rules for elevating the quality and ethics of social journalism content.
An early, or perhaps the first “social journalism” platform] at a major media company was FastCompany.com, in 2008. After the platform launched, in its first six months, FastCompany.com signed up 2,000 bloggers and 50,000 members. “Fast Company is the first, but certainly not last, mainstream publication to integrate the majority of their site as a social community,” wrote media analyst Jeremiah Owyang in 2008, then a senior social computing analyst for Forrester Research. After Ed Sussman left the website, the Fast Company print magazine editors reverted it to a standard journalism website.