On his Long Tail blog, Wired Editor in Chief Chris Anderson is thinking in public about the future of Wired as a "radically transparent" publication. He enumerates six tactics of transparency ("Show who we are", "Show what we're working on", "Process as content", "Privilege the Crowd", "Let readers decide what's best", "Wikify everything") and the upsides and downsides of each tack. It's a fascinating read — it reminds me of some of the stuff that the Observer went through last year on its own journey to radical transparency.
"Process as Content"*. Why not share the reporting as it happens, uploading the text of each interview as soon as you can get it processed by your flat-world transcription service in India? (This may sound ridiculous, but it's exactly what wire services such as the AP have long done–they update their stories with each new fragment of information). After you've woven together enough of the threads to have a semi-coherent draft, why not ask your readers to help edit it? (We did it here, and it worked great). And while you're at it, let them write the headlines and subheads, not just for the site but also the punchier ones for the RSS feed and the one that has to work with the art for the magazine.
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.