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*.
I bet the entire article was changed to "frist post".
I am proud of Slashdot
(wipes tear from eye)..
I just knew someday, you'd make something of yourself...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Just think, we gave you over a year's worth of experience in about 24 hours. We're not malicious, we're efficient!
Now the problem in replying to this article is that if I troll in my reply am I trolling or being insightful? Or, if I try to be insightful about trolls, am I trolling?
...err.. no... ...PROFIT!!!! err...
Damn you Taco! How does one reply to a post about slashdot trolling properly?
In soviet russ...
goatse.. no..
***USER BRAIN OVERLOAD. CORE DUMPED***
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
You mispelled "the". :-)
You misspelled "misspelled".
You misquoted 'mispelled' as "misspelled" to indicate that 'misspelled' was misspelled as 'mispelled'.
Here we go again!
In that case, the king is the man sitting on the porcelain throne. He's also the only one who gives a shit.
He who has no