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?
Why would radicals not also be capable of defacing it? And why use the word "deface" anyway? Are any opposing opinions automatically supposed to be "defacing" it?
...because when radicals do it, it is simply another form of honest protest.
You can be a "member" of LA Times and let us fill your mailbos with shit, or you can not be a "member" and read our articles off the google cache.
Thanks, I think I'll stick with Google.
What's currently important is not the question of "will it be defaced?", but "will it help removing some of the trenches that are in the US public opinion? Will it add positively to a constructive dialogue between the people?"
I think that it will not, because the predominant circles active on the internet today fall pretty nicely in line with the LA Times readership, so there are not that many dialogues between the rivaling parties. But add a editorial wiki to a bible belt newspaper, and there will surely be dialogue going on indeed.
I'm off to go deface it right now!
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Wikis are good if you're trying to build something that does not contain opinionated material. Or at the very least you want to contain the editors to have pretty similar opinions. If you open it up to the public, there is no way you can come up with a coherent, opinionated view, because by definition people have their own opinions. The Wikipedia works because it has as one of its most fundamental rules the Neutral Point of View. Additionally, it's an effort to build an encyclopedia, which is meant to represent facts as they are. Wikis are also good for building documentation, which is pretty objective in its matter. Wikitorial has none of these qualities.
The only difference between the newspaper and the wikitorial is that the parakeet can read and take a dump on the newspaper at the same time. If the parakeet took a dump on my LCD monitor while reading the wikitorial, the cat would have a special treat.
In using wiki to maintain editorials, the paper is effectively telling the users to alter the content to match their own opinions and beliefs (since that's what most people would tend to do). Digestion of news is usually best done through reading many different opinions, each with an accredited source, to be able to form your own from the information. One 'unified' article in the wiki style doesn't seem to fit with this model, and I'm concious that a lot of people are trying to force wiki's to become the new 'blog' style phenomenon of internet publishing.
To me, a traditional comments thread would be far more appropriate for news reporting. A clear example of the suitability of these two methods can be seen here on slashdot as using wiki for a substitute to comments.. clearly something that would be cumberous at best, and most likely completely hopeless at effectively digesting stories.
Business Voyeur
This anus allows L.A. Times readers to extend or argue cocks with editorial positions taken by the newsboner. It uses wikipedia syntax for erecting penises. -- http://www2.latimesinteractive.com/wiki/index.php/ Wikitorial
Yes. Kind of like how a crazy shit who agrees with me is an activist, and a crazy shit who disagrees with me is a radical or extremist.
Newspapers need to embrace the Web, but not like this.
When we reporters go out and gather information and write a story, there needs to be a way for readers who know the topic to say, "hey, this is wrong," or "hey, you forgot this key point." After all, the reporter is almost always less knowledgable on any given article that he writes than his sources and certain readers.
I could see a wiki or wiki-like technology being useful in correcting news errors (*cough* avoid jayson blair *cough*) or adding new perspectives (*cough* slashdot writ large *cough*) or even gathering story ideas. What's more, such technology would turn newspaper websites from electronic reprints into something even better than the print edition.
But an editorial is supposed to be the voice of the newspaper itself. It is supposed to be an opinion with special significance, informed by all the reporting and editing the newspaper does over time, backed by an awesome institutional storehouse of knowledge.
In short, the whole point of an editorial is that it represents one particular viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. If the Wall Street Journal as a collective entity repeatedly slams Congressional Republicans for pork-barrel politics and fiscal irresponsibility, as it has in recent weeks, that carries particular weight, because the WSJ backs the Republicans more often than not and because it arguably keeps closer watch on the intersection between the economy and government than anyone else.
Likewise, there is reason to care when the LA Times forms a new opinion about California government, the entertainment industry or myraid other subjects at which its expertise is authoritative. If you disagree, fine. You can write an op-ed opinion piece, or letter to the editor. You should certainly be empowered to post a comment on the LA Times website or a trackback to your own weblog post.
But why on earth would I, LA Times reader, want you monkeying with the actual text of the LA Times' editorial? Why would I want to read a version of the editorial you defaced? If I care about your opinion -- maybe you're a film director who disagreed with the LAT on an entertainment industry editorial -- I would much rather read something you wrote from scratch than your own "version" of the LAT editorial.
This seems misguided and frankly I am baffled why opinion editor Michael Kinsley, who used to helm Slate.com -- does not know better.
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.
[1]Too many Iraqi troops have deserted, been overrun or are so poorly equipped that they should not be counted as trained forces
[2]But today you have a new option: Rewrite the editorial yourself, using a Web page known as a "wiki," at latimes
[3]For that reason, when you click below to enter the wikitorial area, you are acknowledging that the Los Angeles Times is not, and cannot be held, responsible for the words or actions of other readers on these pages
The project has already been forked, by Jimmy Wales himself, by starting a counterpoint editorial. Making room for different viewpoints may stave off edit wars. But the real issue is Terms and Conditions inherited from print.
I do have a problem with those who would codify their religious beliefs and hold all others to them (see Islamic law or the Spanish Inquisition) but to say that only atheists or nonbelievers in $FAITH need apply for public office is just plain wrong.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
There's already a revert war in progress between some user Jim Hall, who wants to title a section Downing Street Memo: The Left Questions Bush's Intentions on Buildup to War in Iraq) and another user Alainbloch who wants to title it Downing Street Memo: An Intent to Deceive?. The changelog contains comments such as "removing falsehoods" and "adding fair commentary". I predict this is going to devolve into an all-out edit war from between both "liberals" and "conservatives" with too much time on their hands -- like what happened to the George Bush and John Kerry entries on Wikipedia during last year's election, but magnified by a hundred times because of the LA Times' higher visibility. Wikis are useless for contentious topics meant to be reader-editable; each reader will inevitably inject his own bias into the article -- some will even try to eliminate what they perceive as existing bias. On Wikipedia, say in an article about the history of Macs, a fanboy may end up putting in too much of Steve Jobs' bio...relatively harmless. Here, in the Colosseum of the LA Times Wikitorial, gladiators from the left and right will battle it out over "falsehoods" and "fair and balanced"...to no end whatsoever.
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.
Traditional dead-tree newspapers these days are scared to the death about their own survival because online news sites like Google News are luring Joe and Jane Click-Happys away from them. Putting aside the stern journalistic theories, LA Times might be onto something by creating this "Wiki Wrestling Arena" for political partisans to congregate and fight it out, thereby boosting its sagging readership.
Wiki is a fascinating technology. The jury is still out on its virtue. Will it some day replace blogs? Personal journals? Social networking sites? Or perhaps instant messaging? We'll see. I've recently begun to test a free wiki hosting service called "PBwiki", which has a unique function -- it has a password-protection mechanism that lets the creator of the account decide who can edit his wiki pages. I've created a test wiki at: http://sunandfun.pbwiki.com/, which has a link to the page where you can create your own account with them.
Sun and Fun
Looks like the LA Times decided their experiment wasn't working after a few vandals decided to deface it with porn and goatsex images.
Before that, it was a back and forth between various camps pushing their viewpoint or trying to keep a more neutral tone to the editorial.
Now what is interesting is the google cache has one version of the wiki - making it appear to be the consensus version when it is only one of many edited versions. Which means, unless you cache every edit, Google will not provide a very robust view of the dialogue inherent in a Wiki; yet people will view their cache as authoritative.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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??
Of course it will. The LA Times is just trying to discredit "Internet Media".
WMD was not proven false. In fact, it would be very difficult to prove false, as that would require someone to figure out what the Iraqis did with their stockpiles of WMD. After ten years of dodging the question I doubt it will be discovered anytime soon.
Terrorist ties were also not proven false. In fact, as the US swept through Iraqi officials' offices they discovered more and more documentary evidence linking Iraq to terrorists.
Don't stereotype Slashdot. The membership consists of people who are barely into middle school and those who have their Ph. Ds, and just about every single person you can think of in between.
Not only that, but (like usenet before it) the membership contains a mix of old hands and newbies - including a continuous flux of the latter.
The old hands have gone through the arguments, changed some of their opinions thanks to the insights of others, and now are pretty stable in their current mindsets (pending NEW data or insights.) The newbies arrive with only the opinions they have formed on the basis of their own reasoning and the data and interpretations they have observed elsewhere, ask the same old questions or spout the same old arguments, and are presented with the same old revalations. Many of them absorb some of the insights and become enlightened (in one or more of the many ways available). Some of them contribute conter-insights, and the consensuses are honed. After a while they to become old-hands, ready to present the latest rev of enlightenment to the next round of newbies. And some of them take their newly honed memes to other forums (fora?),
To a viewer who makes the three standard media mistakes of assuming a static population, homogeneous in experience and in opinion, much of the traffic appears to be an infinite-loop debating society, rehashing the same old arguments with no progress whatsoever. In fact there are multiple sets if ideas (often competing) among subpopulations of members and an ongoing process of learning, improving, and spreading the successful arguments both to new participants and to a broader external audience.
Much like a university. Or an interacting collection (NOT a single instance) of political parties or religious/philosophical organizations.
And (like usenet before it), the occasional set-in-his-ways gadfly who NEVER learns and ALWAYS brings up the same old, discredited arguments whenever his hotbutton subject arises, serves a valuable function. He provides a periodic opportunity for the other participants to dissect the errors of the stock arguments and present (and hone) the refutations - bringing up the old subjects (when external events have made them interesting again) so the new participants can see all sides of the issue. You can't count on the current crop of new players to raise the strawman and have it blasted apart every time it's topical. As we used to say in usenet: "If didn't exist we'd have to invent him."
Indeed, very occasionally someone did. But a real true-believer would do it SO much better. So it is fortunate there would usually be at least one of the genuine article hanging around. B-)
The web is teeming with information. Unfortunately, most of it is probably worthless.
Sturgeon's law: "But 98% of [Science Fiction] is [excrement]". "Madam, 98% of EVERYTHING is [excrement]".
It's the 2% that is important. Music hasn't gotten worse since the Classical stuff was written. There was just as much crap back then. But only a few exceptional masterpieces are still being played. Yet there are enough of those to keep orchestras and classical music radio stations in business worldwide.
However, don't become so pessimistic. I don't think that the level of national dialogue has declined. It's probably stayed the same. The internet has just given more ignorant people an easy way to express themselves.
IMHO - honed by half a century of observation - the level of national dialogue has been vastly improved by the unlimited access of the internet.
Yes it gives the ignorant-yet-opinionated an opportunity to spout. And EVERYBODY is BORN ignorant, and at first absorbs a set of opinions from his/her parents, acquaintences, and local authority figures. So unlimited access means there's a LOT of ignorant-but-opinionated spouting. (Fortunately ignorance does NOT equal stupidity OR pig-headedness, and ignorance can be cured very simply.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way