Slashdot Mirror


LA Times Pulls Wikitorial, Blames Slashdot

ubermiester writes "The LA Times pulled down it's "beta" wikitorial after people began inserting obscene content faster than the editors could remove it. Though there is nothing on the LA Times editorial page or in the general coverage, the NY Times notes (free reg req) the fact that the bulk of the vandalism occurred after a posting about the wikitorial appeared on Slashdot and goes on to quote a member of the LA Times editorial staff as saying, "Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience that, to be kind, is mischievous and to be not so kind, is malicious". " Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*.

7 of 678 comments (clear)

  1. Well Taco, it's not a surprise, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    That you'd be so proud of such immature and puerile behaviour.

  2. Fuck them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Who's fucking obscene?

  3. It never even got to tuesday by squiggleslash · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Impressive work by Slashdotters there, especially as I'd have expected them to wait until tuesday to be this mean.

    On a more serious note, it'd be nice to know why the LA Times had these problems but services like Wikipedia have generally avoided it. I'm going to make a guess that Wikipedia et al have had to put up with it but over time have (a) become boring as targets for defacers and (b) have grown to add procedures that discourage simple defacing in this way.

    Unlike Slashdot, whose moderation and IP restriction systems seem to consistantly avoid doing anything about the problems while causing the rest of us no end of grief.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. C'mon Malda, Drinking the OSTG Marketing Kool-Aid? by Real+World+Stuff · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*. Hey Taco, please do not confuse "hits" with "unique visitors". Your poor assessment of web metrics is why you only have peripheral input on the mechanics and operation of this site. I mean with the day-pass whore coming through the pipe who knows who you can alienate next. Thanks for the editorial you gin soaked, leased beamer driving nut-ball.

    --
    If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
  5. Mischievous? by DaleNixon · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Shitcock!

    --
    How long is YOUR e-penis?
  6. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Good fucking Christ, LEARN TO SPELL!

  7. That is soooo fetch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Just what we need, another anonymous ass-clown inventing another gay word so the people who live in their parents' basement, like a trap door spider, can recognize each other should two ever meet on the one day a year they each decide to leave the house.