Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."
Don't you think there's a certain irony about a poster on Slashdot saying to take anything you read on Groklaw with a pinch of salt?
> Groklaw is heavily censored and always has been. PJ deletes/
> hides posts on a regular basis.
Logical fallacy. Response posts have nothing to do with the repository of information and editorials.
> "unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more
> widespread readership than it otherwise would have received."
If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.
Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important, and as part of the self correcting nature of an unedited site, you get submissions like the one all the comments you're now reading are a response to.
In other words, the O'Gara article came out, and slashdot linked to it. Then the groklaw correction came out, and slashdot linked to it too.
Everytime a story involving Groklaw comes up these kind of posts appear on /.
They always claim that Groklaw is not a reputable source, make certain claims about the site, like for example that it has a nazgul posting policy and never, ever back their claims up with anything.
Also note that these kind of posts are always posted by ACs. (Just like my post, I know, but I simply don't have an account).
These kind of posts are neither interesting, nor are they insightful, they are plain and simple FUD!
Are you truly surprised that it would still apply?
This SCO story isn't just one instance of bogus journalism - it's a hypotypical example of the weaknesses of the journalistic profession as a whole (although I hesitate to lump that person in with the real professionals). This sort of thing isn't something that we're ever going to "get over", because it isn't just a "sign of the times". It's an endemic condition.
There's always going to be a difference between conscientious professionals and sloppy hacks. In any profession, not just journalism.
Caveat lector.
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen