Slashdot Mirror
Christian Science Monitor Putting OSS at the Helm
Jane Walker writes to tell us that the Christian Science Monitor is becoming quite the proponent of open source. The aggressive nature of OSS was a large part of what drew CIO Curtiss Edge into the fold, it seems. From the article: "But beyond the tangibles like open source code it was the community that made a convert of Edge. Behind all the open code, it was the forums and flexibility that were the driving forces he believes breeds better developers than those that toil away with proprietary code. Open source software makes developers more aggressive and more apt to go out into the communities that exist around the software to find solutions to their problems, Edge said, rather than holding on some proprietary help desk line while tech support looks up the answer."
To be fair this can happen in open source world as well (well, in the so called "commercial open source world"). But, overall, in general probability of fixing an issue quickly is higher when using open source software.
Amen!
Now instead of telling my boss that our issue has been escalated to level 2 support I can say "I won't have an answer until Elm0 in #L1nuxd00dz recovers from his caffine induced tirade about how LISP is more elegant that PERL".
This is the problem really. The fact that you'll have the correct answer from IRC before level 1 corporate support has taken your credit card number and given you a log reference is irrellevent. Getting the job done is no longer important.
Just to compliment your post, here's a link to the http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor .htmlCSM's FAQ page where they explain the name and ideologies. I know the first time I came across the CSM, I too thought they were maybe not my cup of tea (religiously speaking). But during my time as a news-junkie, I have constantly come across well written and informative articles from them.
OT: Sorry for the crappy html link...I don't know how to embedd the link within the text of my post. I was trying to use a carrot-a-href-equal-URL-carrot tag, but it wasn't working.
these things happen to other people
In the amount of time it took you type all of your responses, you could have gone to the CSM web site and seen whether or not they fit your preconception (er, misconception). They run a single column every day in the Op/Ed section that deals in some way with spiritual matters, and that's it. Almost every newspaper in the US runs at the very least a Bible Quote somewhere on the Op/Ed pages, and the majority of daily papers in this country do carry a religious section, even if only in the Sunday edition, so the column in the CSM isn't terribly out of place (and quite frankly, it's usually fairly nonreligious, but nonetheless it's relegated to the Op/Ed pages where biased commentary belongs).
As an athiest, I can assure you the presence of that one column doesn't somehow "taint" the rest of the newspaper. Quite frankly, the CSM is one of the best, if not THE best, newspapers currently published in the United States, in terms of objectivity, comprehensive coverage of vital issues, and reporting of straightforward facts. You will never see a front page story about Angelina Jolie's baby, or any other nonsense that most American "newspapers" cover, but you will find in-depth reporting from corners of the globe everyone else is ignoring. You'll find original coverage that doesn't rely on republishing the same tired wire reports everyone else is cribbing from, and you'll see rather penetrating journalism that should make every other newspaper's Washington bureau filled with syncophants (of both parties) hang their heads in shame.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
And you're a fool if you think that a paper encyclopedia is more reliable. Wikipedia has serious problems, I grant you (they really need a slashdot-style moderation system--this "everyone has equal power over each other" system is BS.), but at least the errors and biases that crop up are usually (eventually) addressed. Wikipedia is better at keeping up to date, too.
I don't think you understood the grandparent's comment. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is a starting point for research. Wikipedia can be a great resource if the article you are reading is heavily sourced such that any of the information in it can be traced to a real, reliable source (which you can then cite to others), or if you're reading an article such as a well-written mathematical article whose contents can be observed to be correct based upon your own existing knowledge of the topic (although external sources help there too).
However, in the case of the article "Christian Science Monitor", none of the information pertaining to the newspaper is sourced (indeed the only external source is a newspaper article about freelance reporter/hostage Jill Carroll). When you said "I have heard...", you in no way further supported yourself by then saying that "Wikipedia confirms" because in both cases you are only telling your reader on Slashdot that random, anonymous people said something.
Can you see how things that "you have heard" variously could also tend to include things that could be classified as popular misconceptions? And these things, as they are popularly believed, can and will be added to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit by well-meaning but misguided editors -- to say nothing of the vandals that get off by inserting incorrect information into articles surreptitiously. This is why Wikipedia forbids original research and emphasizes that all contributions be verifiable by reliable sources. The CSM article, sadly, fails these two standards miserably.
Now don't bother proving to me that CSM runs a religious article every issue. I already know that. A better idea would be to add a source or two to the Wikipedia article.
audioLibre - freedom of music
I read CSM articles from time to time and find them reasonably well balanced.
Christians are not, in general, a bunch of intolerant anti-intellectuals.
Liberals promote tolerance, not big government and immorality.
The neo-cons smear them both.
True, Real Christians are typically well read and well thougt out individuals.
"Real Christians" are typically just like everyone else. As a group, they're generally neither better nor worse read than the average.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Yes, USA, where the ignorant (that's you) can choose not to listen to people because of a LABEL. If you were as progressive as you think you are, you might actually RTFA and find out it's not a religious publication.
Smooth you.
He was talking about the *ideal* of capitalism, not the reality. The ideal is most definitely "get as much as you can and screw everyone else", in reality you usually end up helping other people in an effort to grab what you can for yourself (people need other people to get rich).
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
Aren't Christian Scientists the ones who don't believe in doctors and medicine? I'm sorry, but I find it hard to stomach an organisation which thinks you can just heal yourself through prayer (or whatever) and whose followers are prepared to let their children die rather than accept medical intervention. And I don't think I could differentiate the newspaper from the religion/organisation, any more than I would comfortably read one of Rupert Murdoch's rags.
I'm afraid I have not much more than passing familiarity with the church that owns the newspaper. A quick google search has confirmed to me that such incidents have happened - the question remains if this is the norm. It might, indeed, be cult-like. I think it is a testament to the quality of the newspaper or my obtuseness that this bias has never presented itself to me.
As for the differentiation issue...yes, who is saying something is an important quality of information, but not to the point of myopia. If consistent evidence shows that a source is truthful, even in the presence of a quality normally predictive of deceit, it is best not to totally reject the source. Insisting that only people who's beliefs you agree with are capable of giving you information about the world is a vice, not a virtue. Consider the people who only watch Fox News.
I might also compare how few journalism awards Murdoch's organization has received to the numerous accolades of the CS Monitor, and the high favor the Monitor holds amongst reputable journalists (the Columbia Journalism Review likes them quite a bit).
Of course, there is only so much news one cares to read in a day. If you've already found sources you like to read, why bother with a newspaper you are disinclined to like? I've offered a few reasons you might like it, but in the end it's not really that important to many people.