Slashdot Mirror
Assorted Katz Hype
Many people are submitting The Obvious
article about Jon Katz not belonging on Slashdot. I guess
I'm glad that in the end its up to me. Personally, I think
most of his articles are good.
xach sent us a deja news bit that goes
much further.
I agree with most of the stuff in these articles, but
I also think most of Katz's articles are worth reading,
but when he mentions his book, I press the back button.
You can too.
I thought it was Ozzy and a Bat not Alice and a Chicken.
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
Pants are Optional
Pants are still optional, but recommended for you.
Seconded. Or pohl. Or anyone who is actually *of the Slashdot community* who writes well. I'm just astonished that Rob would have the poor taste as to let the guy anywhere near here.
--
Xenu loves you!
If you don't want to see it, you don't have to anymore.
But I guess too many people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.
Misfit
--
PLEASE. I've filtered Katz, but it's embarrassing to know he's out there without a filter. If we're going to have Katz, we should be able to have others.
Lloyd Wood's article did more for my grey matter than the last dozen Katz articles -- well researched, logically organized, thoughtful, to the point
/. was all a setup to promote his book when the time was right.
I tend to agree. I've been a Katz defender in the past, feeling that most flames were out of line. I still believe personal attacks are unneccessary, but I began to have misgivings about Katz's intentions when the book thing started. It became increasingly clear that Katz's initial arrival on
Wood's article has served to crystalize my thinking on this matter, and has convinced me to turn on the Katz filter on my prefs page.
I'm awfully tempted to just say "Lloyd Wood doesn't get it." But that's overgeneralizing it, and so I'm ramble on for a bit about why I don't think he gets it. Of course, first I'll need to explain my perspective, (and thus, explain the 'it' that Mr. Wood doesn't get).
I don't usually read newspapers. When I do read a newspaper, I find myself irritated that they bother to kill trees to print such mindless tripe. I'm not terribly fond of television or radio news either. The closest I come is CNN Headlines News in the morning, and I only stand for it because I'm still in my semi-awake haze.
I feel abandoned by modern media. (Media as news source, not media as entertainment. Not that there is much of a line anyway.) They have decided what is important for me to know. But I really don't care. Mr. Wood probably won't appreciate this, but I think this issue is better dealt with by Jon Katz in several of his previous articles, including this one.
Anyway, as I sat here thinking about why I like Katz, even though I disapprove of many of his articles (I'm terribly unhappy about the book related stuff), I came to a realization. I do read a newspaper. It just happens to be digital and run by a guy better known as CmdrTaco than his real name.
A while ago, I read an interesting article complaining that the media was becoming too neutral (or at least trying hard to look neutral). Perhaps, the article argued, we needed media with opinions. (I apologize for forgetting the source of the article.) Well, as I look around, I find that Slashdot has become my media of choice. It's got opinions and attitudes, and it has become interesting to me. It's got the "editorial balance" that Mr. Wood seems to feel is so important, it just happens to have chosen to balance it against certain issues and opinions. (In fact, every newspaper, online magazine, and news show has such a skewed view, Slashdot just doesn't hide it under a veneer of impartiality.)
Yes, it's filtered through a certain set of glasses. But at least I get some say in which pair of glasses.
So, Slashdot is my newspaper, my magazine. It serves me. And, based on its popularity, it serves a lot of other people. But it doesn't serve everyone. No media outlet with an opinion can. (And those they try to avoid having an editorial slant, and opinion, end up alienating some people anyway.)
And if Slashdot partially serves one's needs, skip the stuff you don't like. My favorite newspaper (when I was still regularly reading such things) was the Wall Street Journal. I only read the front page to get a quick view of world news. The rest of the paper had no interest to me. If Katz has no interest to someone, don't read him. I eventually decided I was unwilling to purchase the Wall Street Journal to just read the front page, it wasn't worth the money. Fortunately, Slashdot is free, so it costs me nothing to skip Katz's articles, or Star Wars stuff, or anything else. (With the advent of the customizable Slashdot, I can choose to never see posts by a particular author or on a particular topic.)
So, why is Mr. Wood complaining? In fact, why is Mr. Wood reading Slashdot? If you feel that the editor is "...someone who appears to be functionally illiterate...and it looks as if he would think that 'editorial balance' has something to do with spreading webserving load via SMP." why read on? It's nice that Mr. Wood is willing to forgive Rob for the above "given his youth and lack of a decent education....", but clearly Slashdot is not for him. Perhaps Mr. Wood would be happier with more traditional newspapers headed by older, wiser, and presumably better educated heads.
Cheap shots:
Mr. Wood took a few cheap shots, so I thought I'd fire a few back (in no particular order:
(All quotes are Mr. Woods. Of course, in many cases he is quoting Mr. Katz.)
If it was any more quietly censored, it probably would have been a feature article. Wow, the terrible pain of being censored by CmdrTaco, who stated "I agree with most of the stuff in these articles...." I'm sorry, I seemed to have missed any sort of solid information about the anti-Katz material that was "reportedly" censored. Having browsed the followup messages on several Katz articles, I can assure you that there is a lot of anti-Katz material there. Some of it is even good.Mr. Wood proceeds to rip many of Jon Katz's quotes out of content. (No, I'm not refuting all of them. Yes, I think that some of the points Mr. Wood brings up are valid, but some verge on petty.)
Interesting, a quick scan of the article the Katz quote is from quickly reveals that Katz is discussing the transition of the word geek from the former meaning to the later meaning. (In fact, to quote Webster's Seventh Dictionary (1965), a geek is "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usu. includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake") Clearly Katz means mirror in the most literal possible sense. Obvious Movies and TV directly reflect exactly what happens on a day to day basis. Feh. Perhaps mirror isn't the perfect word, but it's not a new analogy, and certainly not one created by Katz. A culture reflects its goals, desires, and fears into its entertainment. Jerry Springer does reflect our desire for voyeurism, a way to handle our fears that our lives are more messed up than anyone elses, a way to satisfy our desire to feel better than others. And while ancient Rome didn't have movies, they certainly had plays, poetry, and prose which did the same thing. What the Romans protrayed in their forms of entertainment reflected upon them.Between "skies" and "while" in the above quote, I pulled the following:
I don't even know what to think of this. Is Mr. Wood saying that Katz is warning us that criticizing Linux will draw flames for high school students and sociopaths? I seem to have missed the article where Katz says that. Actually, I think that the fact that it is called ASCII is better yet. And I suspect that Katz doesn't hold any sort of opinion that it is spelled ASCCI. If you pick on his spelling and charge that Katz is incapable of editing, I'd believe it. But to claim that a typo is evidence that Katz's discussion of opinions is invalid is completely silly.Wood points out that Katz doesn't have a college degree. So what? A college degree is a piece of paper. I know people who graduate from college with minds completely free of knowledge, and people who never graduated that I deeply respect for their knowledge and wisdom.
It all depends upon where you are going. I'm not quite sure I see where you are pointing Mr. Wood, and given that I'm comfortable with Slashdot right here, I see no reason for it to start going anywhere.Search 2010 Gen Con events
William Zinsser wrote a book called _On Writing Well_ and it talks about the honor of writing well. That's what has finally sent me over the edge with Katz. I was willing to read through his stuff figuring, oh well, the web has brought writing down to this. But then Wood's piece is clear, it's well written, and it's edited. Made me wonder just what Katz is up to. I have to admit that I agree with the idea that he's just selling books now. That whole bit about the dog chewing the boards in his linux machine...it's just too much. Oh well. I won't set my /. prefs to remove him, but I won't be reading him right away. Too long, too cluttered, and too amateurish for me. I would much rather read something professional--not financed necessarily, but certainly something over which a writer has lingered and thought. I don't see that in Katz and I doubt that I ever will.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
I used to read Katz's NetCitizen column on Wired and thought he was (very) occasionally insightful about new media topics and their resultant political impact. However, I never was impressed by his ability to grasp the underlying technical issues and was always a bit amused to see him either use some flowery hand-waving when discussing them or repeat the same mistakes. It seemed to me it was clear that not only did he not understand the technology but had no interest to do so.
In this way, he never really struck me as being very different from the "old media" journalists he used to castigate daily. The only real difference being that he was somehow aware that he had a jump on the rest of them by exploiting the internet.
Thus, I was somewhat aghast to see him pop up in this forum, which I had been reading and contributing to for about a year. It's not that I object to strong personalities or celebrities. It's the fact that he has never taken a CS class, or written a line of code, or soldered a wire, or done anything else that makes us geeks. Or the fact that he doesn't really join in our discussions but instead posts his "essays" which are nearly content-free, self-serving monologues.
Basically, what I object to is that Katz being here violates the sense of community that (I thought) was at the heart of slashdot. As much as I have grown to like this forum, if someone starts a new one that's Katz-free, I have to admit that I'll probably migrate there. And don't worry, I won't let the door hit me on the way out.
(All Hail Linux! To criticise Linux is to
risk the wrath of thousands of high school students and other sociopaths who can't spell!)
Note to previous poster: I believe this was something Woods himself was saying, not a Woods quote of Katz. Personally, it made me laugh out loud. One of the funniest and truest things I've seen lately. And all too pointed in the Slashdot direction. (I mean, come on - it's almost like Communism or religion here with the Open Source, Linux, and "gimme free music, artists should all sit around and eat ramen while they make me the MP3s I deserve".)
That being said, I don't object to the presence of Katz so much, though Woods makes some terribly good points. I don't read much Katz, but I find that a humanizing effect on this site would be useful, if Katz were to do so. If he's really fixated on his book, then he really doesn't need to be around.
Moving on, Rob... I, like many others, found Woods' criticism terribly interesting to read and plan to go hunt out more of his posts when I get the chance. Why not make it easier on all of us and add him to the contributors here? Granted, he slammed Slashdot quite badly, but what better way to put things right in his own manner than to have a hand in the content? Barring his being too busy, I think he'd actually accept the offer.
(One other note. Rob: I recently got something I did picked apart in a public forum, so I'm sure you were pretty pissed about the "functional illiterate" crack. But I can't say I disagree, and the point has been raised before. You're attracting a lot of attention with this site. Upgrade yourself. You'll take the criticism hard at first, but if you can realize the criticism and that it's not unfounded... add that to your resolve and work harder to provide a good thing. Make sense?)
Sure, you can configure things so that Katz's articles are invisible to you. But that's not the point. I think the bigger issue is that the mere presence of someone like Katz diminishes slashdot. Not because he lacks technical knowledge---but because he is essentially a parasite.
This is clearly just my oppinion, but Katz seems to be in the business of self-promotion only. he adds no value to any of the discussions, he states only the most obvious, much of what he writes is just wrong, and he clearly wants to be the center of all of his pieces
Sure, I don't have to read it. But I when things are over-hyped by popular media (a la "information super-highway," "cyber-space," etc.) it takes a lot of fun out of the topics for people who have a legitimate and deep interest. And having Katz around makes slashdot a little less enjoyable for me.
The Computational Beauty of Nature
Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Yep, that says nerds in general. Not just hardware nerds, or software nerds, mac nerds, linux nerds, etc. But ALL nerds. Slashdot is a place for everyone to communicate unique ideas about technology, not just nitty gritty low level tech info. I kinda like Jon's articles. Granted, they're not the most insightful, pulitzer prize winning pieces of literary greatness, but alot of people like them. If you don't like them, then not only do you not have to read them, you don't even have to know they exist. That's why the filtering is there. Hell, you don't even have to read what Rob says; just filter his posts out. Easy as that.
First and foremost, a complete and well-studied deconstruction of Katz was long on order. Woods does it superbly.
I read Jon Katz. Actually, I have been reading Katz for a long time. I used to like his writing a lot more when he talked about subjects he had studied. The real problem, and Woods points it wiht many more words, is that this late Katz is shallow and mostly self-referencial.
Some of you around here seems to solve Katz problem (if one exists) by simply asking people to filter him out and leave him alone. But I don't think this attitude solves the right problem. Filtering Katz out solves a noise problem. It doesn't solve the content dillution Katz brings to Slashdot.
Why is there content dillution if I don't have to read it? (Or, does the falling of a tree makes a noise if nobody is there to hear it?). Well, in the same way a salad recipe would cause some disconfort if published in C++ Report, so does Katz causes the same disconfort being published in Slashdot. This kind of misplacement of content tends to bother people because it usually brings along a misplaced audience and misplaced adds. A dillution of content may also signal a deeper change. Katz in Slashdot may well mean that Slashdot itself is changing and that we should start searching for technological news elsewhere. Most Katz detractors, consciously or not, are reacting against this last threat.
As for Katz, he used to be a good journalist. I can't say he is a good writer. His mountain book is shallow and dry. "Running to the Mountain" does not add a comma do the meaning of aging in the late twenth century, to the search of spirituality in the modern age or to anything else. It is just a long account of a middle-aged man summer fever. And a boring account, for that matter. If Katz did not considered himself so important, this book could have been a lot better.
And I don't think he can be forgived for making himself "news for nerds". Because "stuff that matters" he certanly isn't.
If slashdot is to be known as more than just a hangout for free software fanatics, we need people like Katz to round out the slashdot universe.
Remember in college, they made you take literature classes, art classes, even gym classes, all in hopes of broadening your horizons, and making you a richer human being.
Katz has a place here. Don't be afraid of people with different ideas, and don't be afraid to have your beliefs challanged. Slashdot shouldn't become such an exclusive club that all we do is sit around and talk about how great Linux is, patting each other on the backs and berating all who don't think just like we do.
He see's things just a little differently than we do. And for that, I thank him.
I don't like all of Jon Katz' articles, but I don't like all of any particular writer's writing (except for the shining exception of Hunter S Thompson).
In a lot of ways I agree with Wood's extensive critique of Jon's articles (in spite of the fact that it does take a couple of pot shots). It does seem like Jon is possibly taking advantage of this forum to market his own stuff.
Is there really a lot of harm in that? VA Research systems uses slashdot to market their own stuff: they (presumably) give Rob money and machines and in exchange they get ad space (and lots of it). That's fair: they give, they get, and vice versa for Rob M.
Jon Katz also gives something to the site, and he's getting something in return. He provides content and he gets increased exposure. Give some, get some, 'round and 'round it goes.
What I find impressive is the fact that Jon continues to stick around in spite of his many many detractors. Yeah, he can be a puffy ol' windbag at times, but his stuff usually contains enough of interest to make it worth reading (imho). If you disagree with me on this (and I know that oh-so-many of you do) the magical filtering features allow you to shut him out. Or, if you have a modicum of self-control and free will, you can choose to leave him unfiltered and simply Not Click Through to read his articles.
Is slashdot "selling out". No. Rob & Co. is (from what I can tell) continually working their bums off to increase the quality and usability of this site. Allowing Jon Katz to write and post articles here is part of that. Recruiting more writers will further improve this site. Original content, whether you like it or hate it is a good thing.
Maybe Jon could tone down the self-promotion a shade. Maybe Rob could refine his editorial judgement a shade. If not: so what. You've got the filtering technology, so use it.
I'm glad that Rob added the link to Wood's news posting. It's a sure sign of increasing editorial maturity when an editor is willing to publish articles that criticise the publication and it's editorial policies.
- deb
I read most of Katz's articles, and liked most of the ones I've read (not necessarily agreeing, ofcourse) but lately I have noticed the decline of the content. Although I must admit that I'm a big a fan of spiritual jouney's as the next guy, and dog's, what the hell does that have to do with geeks/nerds/technology?
His articles dealing with technological views from "regular" people's standpoint are usually a good way to go. I can gain a lot of insight as to why my users look at me funny all the time. I can gain a differing viewpoint on the same subject matter.
In a place with no real niche for articles on strictly viewpoints, Katz offers up insightful editorials that will hit a mark usually. Unfortunately, lately his editorials have dealt less with viewpoints, and a little more with self-promotion. A little is fine, but his last article had a bit more than a little.
Recently I've taken to quickly scanning his diatribes for his book title. If I see it a little too often, well then, close that window, and move on (unless I use lynx, then the back button is employed).
I just hope the Katz decides to tone down the self promotion, and maybe even a bit of the fluff you find in standard articles for standard periodicals. Couldn't hurt.
- Dan
Katz's articles are written from a completely /. articles.
different point of view than other
This isn't an inherently bad thing. Broadening
Slashdot's range of stories isn't automatically
a terrible thing to do.
His articles are of a more personal nature
and as such will include more personal pronouns.
So what? It's a column; it's an opinion piece;
it's not a news article. He's an editorialist
and, on occasion, a free-thinker.
-Augie
When lambasting an author for his statements, nothing undermines a critic like throwing darts at a factual statement. The dejanews article suffers from this:
> [Katz writes:]
>> Geeks bit the heads off of
>> chickens and rats in carnivals at the
>> beginning of the century in exchange for
>> room and board.
>
> Suggesting that Alice Cooper, faded mainstream
> media musician who gets television time as an
> indicator of American culture, is a geek,
> strikes me as rather, well, odd. Come again?
First off, the story about Alice Cooper biting the heads off chickens is a myth. At one show he had chickens as a prop, and one got snatched by his audience and torn to pieces. That got turned into the "biting the heads off" story.
Secondly, Katz is entirely correct. At the turn of the century (rather before Cooper's time), and in fact up until the 1950s, "geeks" meant side-show performers whose acts consisted of them biting the heads off (and often eating entirely) small animals. Next to the fake freaks, they were the lowest of the low in the freakshow heirarchy. The blue-skinned, puzzle-tattooed Enigma from Jim Rose's Travelling Freakshow (as seen on the X-File) is a classic geek.
-- Meet the Residents -- http://www.residents.com/
hey all. /. (and I wholeheartedly agree with a previous poster that he does seem like the ONLY writer here).
Katz is a writer. A frequently good writer (and just as frequently over-simplistic and utopian), but there are many reasons that he is a good contributor to
Even though the site is subtitled "news for nerds. stuff that matters" this is not limited solely to discussions of purely technical merit. There are people that are interested only in the technical aspects (linus) and there are people who are worried and concerned about the implications of our technology. Technology created in a vacuum helps no one. Anyone remember the Manhattan Project? The technical acheivements of splitting the atom were controlled by an intense environment of military competion and secrecy. Hence, we have intense nuclear escalation up through the middle of the century, then we have inferior technology designed to try to keep up (Chernobyl).
While that was a mighty digression from Katz, my point is, that SOMEBODY here needs to remember that this stuff affects people. I, too, skip through the account of the success of Katz's book. I would probably read it, but with a healthy dose of skepticism, like we should all read ANY source.
And someone did point out that these are editorials, personal sometimes in nature, and not academic dissertations.
Add more writers, more voices and don't forget that this stuff affects people, not just other programmers.
Readers: Either you filter him, ignore him or read him. How hard is that? Any other excuse is lame.
/. is starting to feel tabloid-ish with these kind of "news" items.
/. : Either you keep him or get rid of him. Posting something like this on your site is throwing gasonline on the fire. These type of posts are antagonistic and fostering the controversy. If you're trying to defend Katz, then do it off the main page in a prepared statement that gets updated often.
Personally I like his work and have e-mailed him a couple times to compliment his work and tell him to ignore the flames. BUT, you guys need to decide.
If you want him (hope you do!) then keep him. People don't like it...tough! If not bag him, and if people don't like *that*...tough! You said it yourself "...in the end its up to me".
Opinions are what Katz and Pournelle are selling. I read them both, because they are willing to look at things, see them from a different angle than I had and tell me about what they see. Jon more than Jerry. I hope they both stay. And confound it, Slashdot is not forcing you to read Katz' articles. Rob is making what he has to say available so you can read it if you want to. By now you should have a fair idea what kind of things Katz will say. Read it or don't, but don't whine because he is saying them.
One would almost think that Katz is violating cherished beliefs, and what we are hearing is "burn the heritic".
Of all the things I read in these comments, the ones that seem to give that message are the saddest. And those saying it should be carefull -- their turn at the stake might come if they had the courage to give their real names and stand behind what they are saying.
Jim Hurlburt
jlh@ewa.net
It's bad luck to be superstitious
Almost a catchy slogan, eh?
Seriously though, Lloyd Wood's article did more for my grey matter than the last dozen Katz articles -- well researched, logically organized, thoughtful, to the point. Not controversial for the sake of drawing attention. Slashdot would do very well to feature this guy and anyone else who has a similar similar level of being clued in/being able to read and write.
I often but not always read his articles, and I have to say there's usually something in them worth my time. Even if I disagree, it's usually something worth the trouble of figuring out *why* I disagree.
As far as various authors talking about themselves a lot -- they say you should write about what you know, and most of us know more about ourselves than anything else. If done well, sound-bite biography can be charming, or at least amusing -- see Isaac Asimov's anthologies, where he talks briefly about how each story came to be and what was happening in his life that made him think that way. Introspection and reminiscence are valid and useful sources of raw material for writing. If some of us find that some writers' use of these sources gets in the way of what we think the story ought to be, then maybe we misunderstood the story. Or maybe constructive criticism will help the writer to a more mature style.
Let the man write. None of us is forced to read it.