http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57558088/authors-exercise-their-write-to-self-publish/

Informative in the way it talks a bit more about the other side of my project: traditional publishing.  It points out how publishing is more of a team effort (what with marketing, cover art/design, printing, etc.) and that as a result the end game is the same as self publishing: getting the book out to the public to ensure the highest readership possible.  It's also pointing out the fact neither traditional publishing or self publishing are the prime utopias that people make them out to be (black and white thinkers that we as humans tend to be), but that both have their incredible successes and failures.  There are good books and bad books published by both, and I'd personally be shocked either way.  It also mentions something that I've seen recurring in my research.  Anything that is self published tends to have its roots in alternate methods of marketing, critique and those published traditionally take the mainstream route with the reviews being from places like Time Magazine or The New York Times.