If job security is a goal of yours, I don't recommend the content startup business. Don't believe me? Take a tour of Jim Romenesko's MediaNews.

The site -- which in the last six months has risen to biblical status among online, and offline, hacks -- was a veritable employment obituary page last week. Thirteen fired by Salon.com in an attempt to cut costs while the stock struggles to crack the Mendoza line (it was trading at 1-3/8 as I wrote this); many let go by Oxygen media as Oprah's network reconfigures; all 140 of APBNews' paid staff told that their most recent paycheck was the last (barring some as-yet-to-appear funding.) And that was just one week.

As the sheen has fallen from the dot-com glow, the ugly stepsister of the Internet business when it comes to profitability -- content sites -- are being as hard hit as anyone. Although many writers and editors might not admit it, instead of spending our time on e*Trade, as we did during the halcyon days of 1999, we spend it on sites like NetSlaves and StartUpFailures, where we wallow in the failures of the increasing number of people working on the downside of the Web business.

Four years after

It is in this environment that I got my assignment for this week: Reflect on the fourth anniversary of IC's launch -- on where the e-zine has been, where we are going and what we have learned.

IC's fourth anniversary on the web

Hmmm, good questions, I thought, as I noted where we haven't been -- nor does it appear we're going any time soon -- which is an IPO. For that matter, the buzz surrounding us has not equaled that for Salon or APBNews. So what to say about IC, a zine lacking in the glamour of other sites but still sailing along quite nicely in the brave new world of online content?

At IC, we're not reinventing the wheel, we're trying to improve one spoke of it. We're attempting to produce a depth of articles that offer quality commentary on the ideas that are changing the country's -- and the world's -- thinking on politics, public policy, governance and technology.

We are not called IntellectualCapital.com for nothing. Our aim is to enrich our readers by providing them with access to ideas that they agree with, that they disagree with and that had not occurred to them. Ideas are money, and intellect is power. In the Information Age, statements like that have become cliches, just like the very term "Information Age," but they are nonetheless true.

Now on to the crux of my assignment: What have I learned in my first four years with IC? And what lessons can be gleaned from the content revolution that never quite happened?

Lessons learned

• Know your limits. One reason IC hasn't garnered the publicity -- good or bad -- of content sites such as Salon, Slate, Inside, TheStreet.com and APBNews is that we have not shared those sites' grand ambitions, nor have we shared their deep pockets. (I say that with more than a tinge of envy. Who wouldn't have liked to have tens of millions of dollars at their service?) All of those sites have done some great and interesting things with their resources ... and all also have made some great and interesting mistakes.

  At IC our highs and lows have been on a smaller scale. We employ only four full-time editors and writers, and rely almost exclusively on the ideas and talent of our stable of freelance writers. We have almost no travel budget and few chances to really break news. Instead, we concentrate on getting our readers to think differently about the news.

  That mission does not create much buzz, but it might create a sustainable way to run a magazine. Our smaller scope allows us to have a larger margin of error, and, hopefully, gives us the ability to publish new ideas and try new things.

  Is IC better than those sites? Maybe, maybe not. But are those sites irreplaceable? Not yet. Until they are absolute must-reads, it is hard for me to picture them making big profits.

• The Internet is home to quality writing. One of the things that has changed in the last four years is that the notion of the Web as some wild-west publishing ghetto long since has disappeared. A byproduct of the irrational exuberance of 1998 and 1999 is the large number of wannabe millionaire members of the media who were forced to try to figure out a way to go online.

  Because of that, you won't find many people who will tell you Web journalism is, in and of itself, inferior to print journalism. I have said this many times, but, now more than ever it is true: Good writing is good writing; sometimes it appears in print, and sometimes it appears on the Web. The same could be said for bad writing.

• Interactivity changes everything. You haven't lived until you've had a thousand people comment on your writing. If professional pride isn't enough to make you go the extra step to get a story right and think it through, the ease of reader feedback sure is. Knowing that every single reader can comment on your error raises the stake of your work and should raise the quality.

  That said, I would not put myself in the camp that says interactivity is always a bonus. I have received too many ill-thought messages and seen too many thoughtful articles degenerate into screaming matches about inanities among IC posters to heap unanimous praise on the process. Sure, this is supposed to be a democratic medium, but do we have to grant equal time and weight to some hacked-off poster?

  Most writers I have worked with in the last four years spend considerable time thinking about, researching and reporting on the subjects they write about. Their opinions tend to be informed, whether or not one agrees with them. Too often, readers offer opinions that are not quite as, how shall we say, informed, and too often discussions degenerate into off-topic rants. When that happens, insightful discourse loses, chaos reins, and the medium's potential dwindles.

  Still, take a look at Slashdot for proof that interactivity deserves to be the future. The site -- with its approach to community -- has reinterpreted and altered how technologists think, and has created something that did not exist. There are worse goals for IC than to try and emulate that model.

• It's a crowded world out there. Maybe it always used to be like this, but it sure seems like there is more to read today than ever. Want proof? Look at the success of Web logs. The Drudge Report, the aforementioned MediaNews, Arts and Letters Daily and Robot Wisdom all have earned attention for their ability to aggregate information to help Web users know what to read.

  Wearing my editorial hat, I realize this glut of information makes it doubly hard for an e-zine like IC to make noise and, thus, makes my job harder. Taking that hat off, I can't help but celebrate what's at my fingertips and is published everyday. Places like NationalReview.com, Salon, The Industry Standard and Stratfor.com amaze me with their daily production of commentary.

• Be careful when people say paradigms are shifting. Whether its journalism, the democratic process, commerce, social interaction or just plain sex, few paradigms have shifted quite yet. The decentralizing promise of the Net is still more theory than reality. The improvement in convenience is real but more about speed than activity. Real geography still trumps the virtual kind. The change in ways people live their lives tends to be marginal rather than essential.

  Here is an experiment for you: Take out a piece of paper -- or your Palm VII -- and write down things that you can truly say you do now but wouldn't be doing if it weren't for the Net? Do I correspond more because of e-mail? Yes. Do I read more ... and of a greater variety? Sure. Am I more self-reliant when it comes to commerce? Probably. That's my short list. And yours?

Keep on trucking

That is about the sum of my accrued wisdom of online content in the last four years. Admittedly, it isn't much, but it is something. I've spent a lot of time talking to -- and listening to -- people a whole heck of a lot smarter than I am in that time, and I can tell you none of them have quite figured out this game yet, either. There's been a lot of trial and almost as much error. And the same can certainly be said about IC.

I hope we have added a little to the cacophony that is the Web, made it a more civilized place and perhaps exposed our readers to some new ideas. If not, we are sure going to keep trying.

Bob Kolasky is the former managing editor of IntellectualCapital.com.