Slashdot Mirror
Editorial Wiki Debuts At LA Times
jgarzik writes "The L.A. Times newspaper has launched a new form of editorial, the wikitorial. The LA Times editorial staff introduces the new feature in this editorial, and the first wikitorial, War and Consequences , has already been posted. Is this an innovative new way to interact with readers, or will it be constantly defaced by reactionaries?"
I would think that comments to a news editiorial would do pretty much the same thing. What's the benefit of being able to edit someone else's opinion?
I think it's because Americans judge things too quickly. At first they didn't know anything except "WE GOT ATTACKED?! ATTACK THEM!" but now they know the ins and outs from watching the news.
Wake me up when they let me correct facutal errors in actual news stories.
This is either a diversion away from, or a test of, such a system. But considering how pissy reporters get about their own fellow staff members editing their work... I wouldn't want to be in that newsroom when the LA Times wikifies their news.
What is defacement to one person is likely an adjustment of facts to another. While I'm on the fence regarding the usefullness of this, I do think it could be quite an interesting socioligical experiment. It would be interesting to cache all of the iterations and watch the progression.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
I think you're on to something... opinions work well enough for American Idol, so why not international policies?!!
I've been looking through the diffs, and I see nothing but back and forth trollery from both conservatives and liberals. Instead of constructive thinking, it just looks like pointless, egotistical "I'm correct, you're not" bickering back and forth. With all this bickering, nothing is actually getting accomplished.
A truly democratic-like society requires action, not just constant, self-righteous argumentery. But that won't happen as long as the Big Media continues to push for the liberal/conservative dichotomy, the whole "You're either with us or you're against us" attitude. We need to remember that we are all humans, and we must work together for real change, rather than just bicker on some experimental wiki.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
The only time the left is concerened about the truth is when it agrees with their version of reality.
This is the real problem with web forums, wiki's and other user generated/interactive media in general. The medium self selects for people that don't wan't to hear their positions contradicted or indicted. When the unreasoning positions of the dominant group are indicted you usually see a mammoth shout down of the dissenters.
The original post indicates bias and unreasoning hatred by the left. "Defaced by reactionaries", this in itself can be considered primarily jingoistic and a reactionary use of reactionary. Politically speaking reactionary only applies to those seeking to reverse the results of a revolution. Unless you view the L.A. times as the vanguard of some yet unrealized revolution, disagreeing with them is not reactionary but meerly dissent.
Once again "cost to the truth" is a loaded and meaniningless term in this context. Everyday nearly everyone in the world takes action on incomplete and sometimes erroneous information. Acting on your best interpertation of the available data. "Cost to the truth" has become nothing more than one of the slogans that might have been taught to the sheep in animal farm.
It would be much more appropriate to ask what have forums like the CBS news under dan rather, the washington post, the la times, and the New York times cost our societys abillity to have a reasoned discourse that informs the population. When you have the "Credible and Respected" information outlets slanting the news in manners that are as subtle as 2 ton weights and obvious even to coma victioms, it is no wonder that both sides of the argument have taken a don't bother me with logic attitude.
But add a editorial wiki to a bible belt newspaper, and there will surely be dialogue going on indeed.
But is it the right kind of dialogue? With an impersonal medium such as the internet, misunderstandings are easily created. It's also easier to be an asshole. And a wiki is wrong in the first place, since it's endlessly editable. A proper discussion board, moderated with an iron fist (to keep out people who can't be polite), would work better.
Even then, I don't think that the textual medium is entirely adequate. You can learn so much more about someone in face-to-face discussion.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
I don't have a problem with someone who has a genuine faith and is in public office.
Neither do I. I just have a serious problem with people who make a big deal about their faith, and act completely contrary to it. Its really puzzling to me though how Christians can allow themselves to be allied with the war machine.
(see Islamic law or the Spanish Inquisition)
Or the crusades (I linked not because I doubt you know about them, just that its an interesting read in the context of today). When I was in school (in Canada), we were forced to stand and say the lords prayer in public school. This is how my antagonism toward Christianity started. Unless I could prove to them that I (actually my parents, my view wasn't important at all) was of a faith other than Christian, there was no way to abstain. Apparently not having faith in anything in particular wasn't allowed.
These days I have gained a lot of respect for Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. I resent non-believers taking advantage of people who do believe in these things. They have a lot to teach us. Thats why I feel so strongly that actions should speak much louder than words, and we should focus on what Jesus would say if he were alive today. Forget about if its true or not, its not really that important.
But compare Wikipedia to almost any other encyclopedia. A democratic system may turn up a lot of misinformation, but to counter-balance, there is a much larger well of information to draw from. The percent accuracy is boosted by the sheer volume of information on wiki, compared to private endeavors. And with the number of contributors, facts will more often surface than lies, even if it takes a while for the system to correct itself.
That system doesn't really make much sense for an editorial, though. Editorials are pretty much opinion by definition, so there is no center for them to 'average out' to. They will simply stay in fluctuation.
Understatement - they've turned it off!
And of course it will be constantly defaced!
It is amazing that the LA Times would even try this since they do such a good job of "filtering" in their letters to the editor section. It is nominally 10/1 liberally biased.(That based on an unscientific poll my Dad did of the paper some years ago..) He and a couple hundred thousand others have dropped the paper because of it's bias. The paper's subscription rate have been rapidly declining over the last many years in large part due to this (the coming of the internet doubtless also has something to do with it).
The LA Times - even the Fish don't want to be wrapped up in it anymore!
Have you compiled your kernel today??