Rolan was the first one to write with the heads-up about Wired's story about Slashdot-things are in much the same vein as other stories, but give it a gander if you'd like. And stop submitting the story *grin*.
Re:Experts vs Crackpots
by
ucblockhead
·
· Score: 2
...since I don't post stuff I know nothing about...
Youll never be a journalist with that attitude.
--
The cake is a pie
It's metajournalism
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
I think Slashdot is a kind of metajournalism. It embodies news, opinion, ignorance, expertise and spin, all of the things that define de facto journalism. However slashdot improves upon this by adding direct peer review -- I don't know how many times I've been grateful for the "collective bullshit-detector" that the comments provide.
I read slashdot, nytimes, memepool, the onion, salon, and The New Yorker (on paper).
Slashdot is to journalism what logic is to the study of mathematics. This worries all of the mediocre journalists out there who think that being a journalist entitles them to try to hide thier biases and agendas.
The Slashdot era will bring newfound vitality to American Journalism, as well as a refreshing polish to the first amendment.
You forgot First Contact, which, although munges things up a LOT, still has the Borg. Who aren't in Generations. --- "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
-- "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine. Quine "quine?
Thank goodness for Slashdot -- it's the most intellectually stimulating part of my daily routine.
That's just so sad...
;) --- "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
-- "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine. Quine "quine?
Re:Open Source Journalism w/compensation
by
yorgi
·
· Score: 2
I think that the term "Open Source Journalism" makes a very interesting comparison to "Open Source Software." It is very similar on many different levels.
It seems to bring similar, mixed feelings from professional journalists as open source software brings to professional software coders. Some software companies have really gotten into the act of open source software, and love the idea. From having read the Wired article, it seems that some journalists seem to think it's a cool idea, and there is some real value there.
On the other hand, there are software companies that feel threatened by open source software, and see no future in it. There are many journalists that feel threatened very much in the same way by open source journalism. There are other negative views as well, such as software companies believing there is no future in open source software. (I think that perhaps these sort of views are to cover up the threat they feel.) I'm sure there are journalists that claim the same of open source journalism.
Maybe those that don't believe in Open source/journalism are very strong in sticking to the old saying, "nothing in life is free." I would say that the majority of those which subscribe to open source/journalism believe that there are a few things that are free.
Okay, sure, if you wanna get technical, someone has to pay for the bandwidth, the electricity, the hardware. However, the information is free. YOU, the END USER, don't have to pay one red cent directly to the journalist or open source programmer.
Slashdot does have a "reputation" system.
by
AtariDatacenter
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot does give a minor 'reputation' to posts. This post, for example, is starting out as a 2 instead of the normal 1. The reason is that in the past, I have posted replies that were often moderated upwards. So there is a starting point for my messages to begin at.
But there are advantages to NOT having a 'reputation tracker' running. For one, anyone can create a new ID at a whim. If your old one has a bad rap, come up with a new pen name. Second, the system seems to give the impression that every thought should be judged on its own merit. I've seen stuff that I would swear were written by Linus, but were cut down by a few Slashdotters.
Actually, that's a good thing. Just because a well reputable person has something to say, it doesn't make it interesting by default. Judge the ideas for themselves, I say.
I thought that the moderating system *was* a kind of 'rating' system. You can set your moderation to what you find acceptable. Might not be the most perfect system, but it works for me. In terms of 'trust', there might not be any immediate trust for any of the posts, however, like you mentioned, after you check out posts from the same people over and over and they are accurate, a kind of trust developes. 'Earned trust' rather than 'Blind trust'. Always the best kind.
Dissagreement with a point in the Article
by
Basalt
·
· Score: 2
I strongly dissagree with one comment in the Wired article:
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
I think he has it backwards, I go to/. to get commentary on the validity of the "journalist" publications. I have very little trust of what I see in print, because I don't think journalists have enough time to do good research. Admittidly, an individual commentor is no better, but the statistical nature of the mass of commentors provides a lot of total research effort.
I think we should ignore this story completely because the author referred to the borg as being in Star Trek: Generations. Pah. Dolts. I'll never read wired again.
Open Source Journalism w/compensation
by
AtariDatacenter
·
· Score: 2
The term "open source journalism" is just a little odd... since it isn't quite journalism anymore. And I feel funny participating in a peer review of a singular review of a peer review system.
Anyhow, if journalists are afraid of an open-source journalism system, what they should get excited about is one w/compensation. The model is very close to Slashdot.
Open participation, with random readers ranking the results. The pariticpants (story providers) are compensated by the rankings of their readers. Imagine if Slashdot paid decent money for articles that rated a "5". That's incentive for you.
Albiet, there is a number of nagging flaws here and there, and such a system wouldn't have to be pure slashdot, but the basic concept seems to be relatively sound for providing an open-source journalism system that the journalists would buy into (or be bought into!).
Re:Open Source Journalism w/compensation
by
joshv
·
· Score: 2
I've been thinking about something like this too. Utlimately you don't really need editors (CmrdTaco, Hemos, et al). Let anyone post a link, or a story or feature.
Let the readers sort out what is good and bad. There are certainly some technical challenges in implementing that, but they are not insurmountable.
If you get enough eyeballs and ad-revenue you could offer to pay the authors of the best content.
-josh
Re:Open Source Journalism w/compensation
by
Shoeboy
·
· Score: 2
Imagine if Slashdot paid decent money for articles that rated a "5". That's incentive for you. Better yet, imagine if they paid for posts that rated a 5. You think the site is full of score whores now, wait till you get posts like "Psst... Hey buddy, moderate this up and I'll cut you in for 10%" --Shoeboy
I like Slashdot and all that, but well over 50% of the content is just re-linking to stories on salon, news.com, or wired. I can go read news.com and wired.com in the morning, and in the afternoon there will be 3 or 4 stories posted (on Slashdot) that just point back to those. If anything, maybe Slashdot is a good way to, er, gather together the more interesting news and comment on it, but they're not 'scooping' anyone, except for when they post major software releases before they're supposed to be released, so the mirrors haven't gotten their copies yet, and the hordes kill the main site and the mirrors never get their copies.
Mix in the occasional JonKatz yellowish journalism (it's designed to create controversy and draw more hits/pageviews/ad loads), an article a day about "amazing high storage at amazingly low price sometime in the future" (I swear, there's at least one of these a day), and ever so often an empty essay from a slashdot reader or a book review.
And of course Slashdot "coexists" with the traditional news sites -- it's where they get half their stories.
The traditional news media says the same thing about The Drudge Report. It's bad journalism, but we look at it all the time for scoops.
The beauty of being part of the technology world is that engineering people in established companies at least recognize systems that work, even if they work differently from their own designs. Journalists seem obsessed with the orthodoxy of their process.
-- -- Dave Aiello
Re:600,000 hungry eyeballs?
by
Sun+Tzu
·
· Score: 2
Surely they mean pageviews. Anybody got any real stats?;)
Now my question is, are moderators on/. decided by posts alone? If so, the guy who's always "I posted first! Phhht" will be in quite a good position!
According to the moderator guidelines, moderators are chosen at random from a fairly wide cross-section of the slashdot population. Anyone who posts a bit and reads a fair bit is elligeable if I understand correctly, which means at least a third of the people visiting the site (a guess - don't flame me for this).
The only people who can't become moderators, again if I understand correctly, are ones who either never post, never read, or constantly hit "reload". Check out the guidelines themselves for more detailed information.
Open Participation vs Open Source
by
AtariDatacenter
·
· Score: 2
Thinking about this issue, Slashdot really isn't "Open Source Journalism". It is "Open Participation Journalism" which happens to run on open-source software and covers open-source issues. There is a big difference.
Take The Killer List of Videogames (arcade games information database) for example. Open participation? Very. Open source? No. Open participation works for databases and discussions, certainly. (KLOV owns the "open participation" database, but people still contribute. Interesting, no?)
Actually, I'm having a bit of trouble seperating some of the aspects of the two in some respects (aside that open SOURCE refers to source code, obviously). Perhaps these terms don't quite cover the full distinction of differences between, say, Slashdot, and the Linux kernel.
?? Help ??
Traditionnal media journalist afraid of /.
by
Etyenne
·
· Score: 2
An interesting quote :
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
I personnally read/. because I have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that trade press (like PC Week) don't always get it right, and I need peer opinion to make up my mind on a particuliar subject.
Sure they're a lot of BS being said on Slashdot, but this BS usually end up being point out by more clueful or honest peers. In traditionnal media, the best you can expect to correct incompetent journalism is a polite "Reader's Letter" in the next issue, if anything.
Let's face it : media independance is an utopy. Journalism always end up being tainted by the opinion of the journalist, the context in wich he gatered his information or his publication interest (sensationnalism, political correctness, etc.). IMHO, you can't trust traditionnal media any more than you can trust any stranger for truthful, unbiased, complete and verified information. It's all about using your own judgement.
This spring, I had an urge to subscribe to as much free trade press as I could (I receive, among other, PC Week, Interactive News, Computer World, etc.). Now I feel bad about wasting so much paper. These rag carry so much bullshit, I can't believe any cluefull CIO (their target audience) can take them seriously. Blatant bias and lake of technical understanding of the subject covered is the norm, not the exception. And I am not only speaking about Linux coverage.
So in the end, if I can't trust the "real" media, I am always left with the option of trusting (or not) peer reader of my virtual community of choice, and use my own judgement, instead of being blindly fed half-truth and outright lies.
At least Wired listens to readers and admits when they're wrong... and they obviously read Slashdot.
-- rooooar
Conventional journalism as "reliable".
by
nyet
·
· Score: 3
It amazes me that conventional journalists have the gall to repeat this mantra over and over again. Every single time the "conventional" news media covers a story that I, or a good friend, have personal knowledge of, they invariably screw it up and add some bizzare audience grabbing spin to it. EVERY TIME. And this isn't just for "nerd" or technical news. Anything is fair game.
It makes you wonder about the rest of the "honest", "reliable", "unbiased" journalism they churn out that you don't have a way to independantly verify. Sure, its not all malicious and/or self serving munging of the news, but anything that can't be attributed to a conspiracy can certainly be attributed to plain laziness.
And speaking of "un-biased" journalism... as long as the medium, or reporter, or whatever at LEAST has their "bias" out in the open, I know exactly what I'm in for. Stories that have that "I'm totally unbiased, just reporting the facts because its my job" style invariably give me the heebie jeebies.
There is, of course, a very good system in action right here. It is caled a "username". When combined with a "brain", it allows the reader to determine whether to trust articles written by someone who they've already read before.
When I read this in the article, I thought that it's pretty obvious the author hasn't discovered what those numbers behind the reply titles are for... (Abuse-free) moderating is a reputation rating system... And (with the exception of abuses) it works pretty damn well, IMHO.
Wired almost gets it right. Kudos to /. again
by
CodeShark
·
· Score: 3
Like other posters/readers, etc. I think that/. does a much better job of depth reporting and analysis than Wired, Salon, etc. and that Rob is just being a little too humble when he says that/. isn't all that deep.
Numerous examples come to mind:
When an "Ask Slashdot" question gets going, often a new project or project direction will open up, improving Linux and Open Source in the process.
When a video card mfr or other board maker gets feedback from the screaming Linux masses via/. that we'd love to use their product -- if only it was Linux compatible...
When a new kernel, security item, or OS product is released for testing,/. often tips us off, and we all go bang the heck out of the code, resulting in fast bug detection.
When quasi- and various- governmental agencies screw up,/. blows the whistle and we nail them with the Slashdot Effect.
A more "mainsteam" f's up a story --/. not only gets the corrections (via more clued in posters), we often submit replies to the mainstream media which ofter lucid, well thought out counterpoints to the original articles.
Finally, we compete with the Beast From Redmond by making sure that other OS's and technologies get adequate, honest reporting.
Not bad for (as Wired puts it) "a three-person web site" in the middle of Michigan, eh? It used to be "....news at 11 (p.m.)...." IMHO what we're seeing here is....
Slashdot--- the future of interactive journalism...why the hell wait 'til 11!!
-- ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
If you look at articles like the recent one on evolution that split the readers into factions, something kind of different appears. I would bet that people trusted different "experts" in their evaluation of the comments following the article, depending on their own predisposition on the matter.
Slashdot sometimes provides a multi-valued filter on stories. There are well written conflicting comments that are highly rated. I find this more interesting and yes, entertaining, than a traditional news source promoting just one view.
Microsoft stories are identified with a graphic of Bill Gates mocked up as a Borg from Star Trek Generations.
And another reader already pointed out that that is a _major_ flub.
But the article was poorly done in other ways. It was, simply put, a comparison of apples and oranges: Slashdot compared to "traditional" journalism. The quotes from people from "traditional" news sites were stale and meaningless. The best part about the article was Rob's quote that he's not a journalist. Other than that it was like all of the other Slashdot stories I've read: superficial.
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
As far as I'm concerned he's got it backwards. When I see a Wired News story posted on Slashdot, I usually read the story, then read through the comments looking for someone who knows more about the story's subject than the author (and I usually find such a person).
With as many readers as Slashdot has we're bound to have SOMEBODY with more experience with a technical project, phenomenon or area of study than the author, who, well, sits in an office writing all day.
-- /* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
On the subject of Breadth vs. Depth:
by
fable2112
·
· Score: 4
IMHO, too much of either is bad. Rob is quoted as saying that now "we know a lot about a little," rather than vice-versa.
I've seen many posts here on/. complaining that the focus here should be narrower than it is -- Star Wars, the Hellmouth series, etc aren't really "news for nerds," in their view.
Needless to say, I disagree. As I've posted in the past, a purely Linux-focused or even computer-focused site only makes sense if "computer" is a necessary and therefore unstated modifier of "nerd." It is not. I am an English nerd (aka technical writer with a journalism degree), and I'm sure there are more of us here, as well as a good-sized handful of "science nerds," etc.
I think that/. strikes a relatively good balance between having a main focus and having a reasonable breadth and diversity of news. (In other words, I don't think/. is necessarily "a lot about a little" -- don't sell yourself short, Rob!)
And I think the not-strictly-computer threads are necessary in much the same way that in the SCA, you can't become a knight JUST because you're a good fighter, even though fighting is the main focus of the knighthood. At a minimum, you're also expected to teach fighters, and to know how to dance, play chess, and some other things I'm forgetting right now.;)
Super-hyper-overspecialization isn't a very good thing -- we still need common ground with the rest of the world. But having a major focus, and supplementing with bits and pieces slightly outside of that focus that are still interesting, is a good way to go. I like and appreciate it.:)
-- "Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today... but it wasn't anybody I knew" -The Moody Blues, "Dear Diar
All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority.
I found this facinating... There is, of course, a very good system in action right here. It is caled a "username". When combined with a "brain", it allows the reader to determine whether to trust articles written by someone who they've already read before.
Seems to me this used to be the way the "old" media worked.
Anyway, I find this "old media" fascination with the need for a "trusted" source ironic in the sense that the biggest problem they face right now is a complete lack of trust among the general population. I don't for a second trust any of those I see talk about the need for sources that can be "trusted".
To use a sadder example of web journalism, Matt Drudge, while completely lacking in the sort of reputation that would earn my trust is no different from the mainstream media in this respect. I see people I have no trust in complain about how Drudge isn't a "real journalist" because he is not trustworthy. Well, yeah... That's what makes him a journalist.
I trust those who post to slashdot to the extent that I can check them out, and to what checking I've done, posters here are often more accurate, and more inciteful, then anything in the "mainstream" media. It is nice to have a media outlet that actually pokes bullshit stories full of holes within the hour. This is far better than the idiocy that gets printed in most newspapers or news magazines today.
--
The cake is a pie
But they are the accurate authority :)
by
Trith
·
· Score: 2
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
See, they now better. It's Star Trek Generations! :-)
With that said, let me ask you this.
1. Who knows more about the reliablility of MS code? A. Someone who as read up on the subject through a technical book. (MCSE) B. A Journalist who hears something from the company who made the software. C. People who have thousands of hours of experience in dealing with it. D. Bill Gates E. Al Gore
On the other hand, he noted that Slashdot thrives in an environment where people seek more and more fragmentation in their lives. "Instead of knowing something about a lot of things, we know a lot about a little."
"News for Nerds" is a title. I'd say most people here (At least all of my Comp Sci friends and I) know more than just computer stuff. Granted, we talk about computer stuff on here. Why? Please don't make me fill out another multiple choice question. But anyway, I play most sports decently, read science fiction, play piano, run 2 miles a day, fix cars, listen to all kinds of music, date my wife, talk about the stock market, play pool, and drink mountain dew.
However, I can't spell very well. You'll probably see a few errors in here if your not careful.
Please don't assume something so silly as "They read about computers; therefore, that is all they know about"
One of the more telling comments...
by
Maledictus
·
· Score: 3
...is from Mary Jo Foley of ZDNN Tech news.
"The slant is so weird," Foley said, citing a recent Slashdot-linked interview on the Microsoft Web site. "What they highlight from the interview is not what a journalist would highlight. They like to highlight things that make Microsoft look stupid."
Again -- "What they highlight...is not what a journalist would highlight." So? Is that supposed to detract from/.'s credibility somehow? Does Mary Jo Foley have some sort of omniscience that is granted to all journalism graduates that makes what she and others would "highlight" something I need to know, even something I need to live my technical life by? What about the things journalists wouldn't "highlight?" Are those issues that we don't need to worry our pretty little heads about?
She then goes on to say that she checks/. five times a day...heh. To see what she should have "highlighted" I guess.
I have bookmarked Salon, Upside, Andover, CNet, Ars Technia, Macintouch, Slashdot, TechWeb, and The Motley Fool, among others. And what isn't bookmarked is usually found as a link from one of these sites. All have different styles, different priorities and all -- including and especially the "traditional" news avenues -- highlight different issues. After I sift and filter, I think I come up with my business and technical best guess. But without the "non-traditional" avenues, I don't think I'd have the whole story. The inside, "hey, we're sittin' here working with this stuff" story.
And I'm not some kid surfing around for kicks in the basement of the university computer building. I'm an administrative type that recommends and makes hardware purchases -- things like multiple midrange servers, workstations of all flavors, manufacturing shop floor data collection software...but I digress. The point is, I take my technology news seriously because I buy stuff and management expects that stuff to work. I track the technology market from here, among other places.
I guess that makes/. "weird."
-- Consigned to flames of woe.
What makes other news service more accurate??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
I don't get it, the article contradicts itself.
On one hand it says "Slashdot is not journalism but rather just a list of links to other people's articles", then on the other hand it questions the accuracy of Slashdot's journalism -- how can Slashdot be innaccurate if all it has is links to other people's articles, such as Wired and ZDNN???
Personally I think Slashdot is/more/ accurate because of the moderation system. Eventually the truth shines through as comments get scored upward.A great example is yesterday's post of a guy who claimed he solved the IPv4 addressing shortage. Now, if their had been no discussion of the article (as on other news sites) many of us and many tech jouranlists would have believed the guy may be on to something. But here on Slashdot there are many techies who know better and clued the rest of us in that the guy is a nut -- that's the kind of insight you get here on Slashdot.
journalists don't like us....
by
HBK-4G
·
· Score: 2
it seems as though "mainstream" journalists are more obliged to read Slashdot as a matter of user interest rather than feel like it has any true value.
I read Slashdot for the fun of it. Sometimes the news is funny, sometimes serious, sometimes even untrue, but the way in which it is presented is the draw. Also, being run by people who *know* what they're talking about is a big plus. Big sites like ABCNews or ZD may cover more topics, but their writers/editors are rather in the dark about some things.
As for the remark about biased news, name me a newspaper in the US whose editors aren't pro-Republican or pro-Democrat or pro-whatever. Biases exist everywhere. You can count on ABCNews having a slightly more favorable stance for Disney than MSNBC or Yahoo. They'll deny it, but its there; who wants to lose their job because of a flippant comment? Slashdot (i believe) was at first a Linux news site. Naturally, there's going to be a bias against Microsoft. Does that mean the news is any less true? No. Will the way of reporting it be different? Perhaps. But when *you* run the site, *you* get to choose how the information is conveyed.
to end this rant, I think that mainstream journalists need to wake up to the way people are getting their information today. Slashdot attracts viewers because of its individuality and the way news is presented. It may not take over the world, but it is a force to be viewed with respect, not with disgust.
From the article: "All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority."
wtf??? Isn't the moderation system like this? It seems to fit the description above, albeit it has a few flaws (probably mostly to do with varying personal opinions, tho).
Hrm. Maybe I'm just missing what they're trying to say. Comments?
i sent the author a note about this (and I'm probably not the only one - poor guy:) Anyway, read the following...
All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority. One such system is up and running on eBay, ensuring that buyers and sellers on the auction site can trust one other.
Three paragraphs later...
A version of the eBay system is in place at Slashdot. Participants can earn moderation points, and readers can pick a threshold that will screen posts accordingly. Registered users automatically begin with a higher rating than anonymous users.
Either the article wasn't edited well ("Wait, there is a rating system - better add this paragraph here") or I missed his point...
Nobody scoops anybody (almost)
by
dillon_rinker
·
· Score: 4
I like Slashdot and all that, but well over 50% of the content is just re-linking to stories on salon, news.com, or wired
i agree, BUT...
Almost all of the tech news I read fits into one of these categories:
1. Rehash of some company's press release "Cool new product (tm) available Real Soon Now" (I used to work for Gateway and was both saddened and amused when corporate press releases were reworded slightly and printed under a tech reporter's byline major PC magazines).
2. Rehash of come company's financial statement - or "UberTeq posts record sales".
3. Media / corporate collaboration to produce "news" (ZD anyone?).
4. Opinion pieces, where one person lets their thought ricochet around their skull and writes about it. The level of interestingness depends on the cluefulness of the writer.
5. The reporter talked to someone who knew something and then wrote about it.
In short, there is very little originality in tech journalism. Slashdot makes an excellent filter for categories 1-3, and produces categories 4-5 by default.
Absence of Editorial Supervision?
by
dave_aiello
·
· Score: 3
The Wired article says:
"In this model you don't have editors deciding what is legitimate and what isn't," said Jonathan Dube, a senior associate producer with ABCNews.com.
What are CmdrTaco and Hemos doing when they decide which stories to post? Aren't they serving as editors, and determining what is legitimate and what isn't?
I liked this story but mostly I was interested in the views of the journalists interviewed. My favorite was the derision of the stories because there is no editor to look things over and approve them. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the process of sites like Slashdot. A perfect example was the story on the 25th about the supposed "new" way the guy found to make the ipv4 address structure last longer. I don't really have the know-how to know if this was alright or not (beyond the horrible grammar) but within 30 minutes of reading the comments here, I knew it was crap because I had a hundred people way more knowledgeable than I am reading the story and picking it apart. There's no way to do something like that in a traditional news source. They expect us to trust our info to some editor we are completely unfamiliar with, no thanks. What made me laugh the most was the fact that the reporter talked about how Slashdot was unreliable, then she says she checks the site 5 times a day looking for news. I guess as soon as she reports it the news will be reliable?
Slashdot Mirror
...since I don't post stuff I know nothing about...
Youll never be a journalist with that attitude.
The cake is a pie
I read slashdot, nytimes, memepool, the onion, salon, and The New Yorker (on paper).
Slashdot is to journalism what logic is to the study of mathematics. This worries all of the mediocre journalists out there who think that being a journalist entitles them to try to hide thier biases and agendas.
The Slashdot era will bring newfound vitality to American Journalism, as well as a refreshing polish to the first amendment.
-- don't hate me because I'm anonymous.
You forgot First Contact, which, although munges things up a LOT, still has the Borg. Who aren't in Generations.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
That's just so sad...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I think that the term "Open Source Journalism" makes a very interesting comparison to "Open Source Software." It is very similar on many different levels.
It seems to bring similar, mixed feelings from professional journalists as open source software brings to professional software coders. Some software companies have really gotten into the act of open source software, and love the idea. From having read the Wired article, it seems that some journalists seem to think it's a cool idea, and there is some real value there.
On the other hand, there are software companies that feel threatened by open source software, and see no future in it. There are many journalists that feel threatened very much in the same way by open source journalism. There are other negative views as well, such as software companies believing there is no future in open source software. (I think that perhaps these sort of views are to cover up the threat they feel.) I'm sure there are journalists that claim the same of open source journalism.
Maybe those that don't believe in Open source/journalism are very strong in sticking to the old saying, "nothing in life is free." I would say that the majority of those which subscribe to open source/journalism believe that there are a few things that are free.
Okay, sure, if you wanna get technical, someone has to pay for the bandwidth, the electricity, the hardware. However, the information is free. YOU, the END USER, don't have to pay one red cent directly to the journalist or open source programmer.
Slashdot does give a minor 'reputation' to posts. This post, for example, is starting out as a 2 instead of the normal 1. The reason is that in the past, I have posted replies that were often moderated upwards. So there is a starting point for my messages to begin at.
But there are advantages to NOT having a 'reputation tracker' running. For one, anyone can create a new ID at a whim. If your old one has a bad rap, come up with a new pen name. Second, the system seems to give the impression that every thought should be judged on its own merit. I've seen stuff that I would swear were written by Linus, but were cut down by a few Slashdotters.
Actually, that's a good thing. Just because a well reputable person has something to say, it doesn't make it interesting by default. Judge the ideas for themselves, I say.
I thought that the moderating system *was* a kind of 'rating' system. You can set your moderation to what you find acceptable. Might not be the most perfect system, but it works for me. In terms of 'trust', there might not be any immediate trust for any of the posts, however, like you mentioned, after you check out posts from the same people over and over and they are accurate, a kind of trust developes. 'Earned trust' rather than 'Blind trust'. Always the best kind.
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
I think he has it backwards, I go to /. to get commentary on the validity of the "journalist" publications. I have very little trust of what I see in print, because I don't think journalists have enough time to do good research. Admittidly, an individual commentor is no better, but the statistical nature of the mass of commentors provides a lot of total research effort.
I think we should ignore this story completely because the author referred to the borg as being in Star Trek: Generations. Pah. Dolts. I'll never read wired again.
The term "open source journalism" is just a little odd... since it isn't quite journalism anymore. And I feel funny participating in a peer review of a singular review of a peer review system.
Anyhow, if journalists are afraid of an open-source journalism system, what they should get excited about is one w/compensation. The model is very close to Slashdot.
Open participation, with random readers ranking the results. The pariticpants (story providers) are compensated by the rankings of their readers. Imagine if Slashdot paid decent money for articles that rated a "5". That's incentive for you.
Albiet, there is a number of nagging flaws here and there, and such a system wouldn't have to be pure slashdot, but the basic concept seems to be relatively sound for providing an open-source journalism system that the journalists would buy into (or be bought into!).
I like Slashdot and all that, but well over 50% of the content is just re-linking to stories on salon, news.com, or wired. I can go read news.com and wired.com in the morning, and in the afternoon there will be 3 or 4 stories posted (on Slashdot) that just point back to those. If anything, maybe Slashdot is a good way to, er, gather together the more interesting news and comment on it, but they're not 'scooping' anyone, except for when they post major software releases before they're supposed to be released, so the mirrors haven't gotten their copies yet, and the hordes kill the main site and the mirrors never get their copies.
Mix in the occasional JonKatz yellowish journalism (it's designed to create controversy and draw more hits/pageviews/ad loads), an article a day about "amazing high storage at amazingly low price sometime in the future" (I swear, there's at least one of these a day), and ever so often an empty essay from a slashdot reader or a book review.
And of course Slashdot "coexists" with the traditional news sites -- it's where they get half their stories.
[But, hey, I read it for the comments.]
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
The beauty of being part of the technology world is that engineering people in established companies at least recognize systems that work, even if they work differently from their own designs. Journalists seem obsessed with the orthodoxy of their process.
-- Dave Aiello
Surely they mean pageviews. Anybody got any real stats? ;)
Geeky modern art T-shirts
According to the moderator guidelines, moderators are chosen at random from a fairly wide cross-section of the slashdot population. Anyone who posts a bit and reads a fair bit is elligeable if I understand correctly, which means at least a third of the people visiting the site (a guess - don't flame me for this).
The only people who can't become moderators, again if I understand correctly, are ones who either never post, never read, or constantly hit "reload". Check out the guidelines themselves for more detailed information.
Thinking about this issue, Slashdot really isn't "Open Source Journalism". It is "Open Participation Journalism" which happens to run on open-source software and covers open-source issues. There is a big difference.
Take The Killer List of Videogames (arcade games information database) for example. Open participation? Very. Open source? No. Open participation works for databases and discussions, certainly. (KLOV owns the "open participation" database, but people still contribute. Interesting, no?)
Actually, I'm having a bit of trouble seperating some of the aspects of the two in some respects (aside that open SOURCE refers to source code, obviously). Perhaps these terms don't quite cover the full distinction of differences between, say, Slashdot, and the Linux kernel.
?? Help ??
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
I personnally read /. because I have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that trade press (like PC Week) don't always get it right, and I need peer opinion to make up my mind on a particuliar subject.
Sure they're a lot of BS being said on Slashdot, but this BS usually end up being point out by more clueful or honest peers. In traditionnal media, the best you can expect to correct incompetent journalism is a polite "Reader's Letter" in the next issue, if anything.
Let's face it : media independance is an utopy. Journalism always end up being tainted by the opinion of the journalist, the context in wich he gatered his information or his publication interest (sensationnalism, political correctness, etc.). IMHO, you can't trust traditionnal media any more than you can trust any stranger for truthful, unbiased, complete and verified information. It's all about using your own judgement.
This spring, I had an urge to subscribe to as much free trade press as I could (I receive, among other, PC Week, Interactive News, Computer World, etc.). Now I feel bad about wasting so much paper. These rag carry so much bullshit, I can't believe any cluefull CIO (their target audience) can take them seriously. Blatant bias and lake of technical understanding of the subject covered is the norm, not the exception. And I am not only speaking about Linux coverage.
So in the end, if I can't trust the "real" media, I am always left with the option of trusting (or not) peer reader of my virtual community of choice, and use my own judgement, instead of being blindly fed half-truth and outright lies.
:wq
At least Wired listens to readers and admits when they're wrong... and they obviously read Slashdot.
rooooar
It amazes me that conventional journalists have the gall to repeat this mantra over and over again. Every single time the "conventional" news media covers a story that I, or a good friend, have personal knowledge of, they invariably screw it up and add some bizzare audience grabbing spin to it. EVERY TIME. And this isn't just for "nerd" or technical news. Anything is fair game.
It makes you wonder about the rest of the "honest", "reliable", "unbiased" journalism they churn out that you don't have a way to independantly verify. Sure, its not all malicious and/or self serving munging of the news, but anything that can't be attributed to a conspiracy can certainly be attributed to plain laziness.
And speaking of "un-biased" journalism... as long as the medium, or reporter, or whatever at LEAST has their "bias" out in the open, I know exactly what I'm in for. Stories that have that "I'm totally unbiased, just reporting the facts because its my job" style invariably give me the heebie jeebies.
There is, of course, a very good system in action right here. It is caled a "username". When combined with a "brain", it allows the reader to determine whether to trust articles written by someone who they've already read before.
When I read this in the article, I thought that it's pretty obvious the author hasn't discovered what those numbers behind the reply titles are for... (Abuse-free) moderating is a reputation rating system... And (with the exception of abuses) it works pretty damn well, IMHO.
Numerous examples come to mind:
- When an "Ask Slashdot" question gets going, often a new project or project direction will open up, improving Linux and Open Source in the process.
- When a video card mfr or other board maker gets feedback from the screaming Linux masses via
/. that we'd love to use their product -- if only it was Linux compatible... - When a new kernel, security item, or OS product is released for testing,
/. often tips us off, and we all go bang the heck out of the code, resulting in fast bug detection. - When quasi- and various- governmental agencies screw up,
/. blows the whistle and we nail them with the Slashdot Effect. - A more "mainsteam" f's up a story --
/. not only gets the corrections (via more clued in posters), we often submit replies to the mainstream media which ofter lucid, well thought out counterpoints to the original articles. - Finally, we compete with the Beast From Redmond by making sure that other OS's and technologies get adequate, honest reporting.
Not bad for (as Wired puts it) "a three-person web site" in the middle of Michigan, eh? It used to be "....news at 11 (p.m.)...." IMHO what we're seeing here is....Slashdot--- the future of interactive journalism...why the hell wait 'til 11!!
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
If you look at articles like the recent one on evolution that split the readers into factions, something kind of different appears. I would bet that people trusted different "experts" in their evaluation of the comments following the article, depending on their own predisposition on the matter.
Slashdot sometimes provides a multi-valued filter on stories. There are well written conflicting comments that are highly rated. I find this more interesting and yes, entertaining, than a traditional news source promoting just one view.
Jim
The article said:
Microsoft stories are identified with a graphic of Bill Gates mocked up as a Borg from Star Trek Generations.
And another reader already pointed out that that is a _major_ flub.
But the article was poorly done in other ways. It was, simply put, a comparison of apples and oranges: Slashdot compared to "traditional" journalism. The quotes from people from "traditional" news sites were stale and meaningless. The best part about the article was Rob's quote that he's not a journalist. Other than that it was like all of the other Slashdot stories I've read: superficial.
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
As far as I'm concerned he's got it backwards. When I see a Wired News story posted on Slashdot, I usually read the story, then read through the comments looking for someone who knows more about the story's subject than the author (and I usually find such a person).
With as many readers as Slashdot has we're bound to have SOMEBODY with more experience with a technical project, phenomenon or area of study than the author, who, well, sits in an office writing all day.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
IMHO, too much of either is bad. Rob is quoted as saying that now "we know a lot about a little," rather than vice-versa.
I've seen many posts here on
Needless to say, I disagree. As I've posted in the past, a purely Linux-focused or even computer-focused site only makes sense if "computer" is a necessary and therefore unstated modifier of "nerd." It is not. I am an English nerd (aka technical writer with a journalism degree), and I'm sure there are more of us here, as well as a good-sized handful of "science nerds," etc.
I think that
And I think the not-strictly-computer threads are necessary in much the same way that in the SCA, you can't become a knight JUST because you're a good fighter, even though fighting is the main focus of the knighthood. At a minimum, you're also expected to teach fighters, and to know how to dance, play chess, and some other things I'm forgetting right now.
Super-hyper-overspecialization isn't a very good thing -- we still need common ground with the rest of the world. But having a major focus, and supplementing with bits and pieces slightly outside of that focus that are still interesting, is a good way to go. I like and appreciate it.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority.
I found this facinating... There is, of course, a very good system in action right here. It is caled a "username". When combined with a "brain", it allows the reader to determine whether to trust articles written by someone who they've already read before.
Seems to me this used to be the way the "old" media worked.
Anyway, I find this "old media" fascination with the need for a "trusted" source ironic in the sense that the biggest problem they face right now is a complete lack of trust among the general population. I don't for a second trust any of those I see talk about the need for sources that can be "trusted".
To use a sadder example of web journalism, Matt Drudge, while completely lacking in the sort of reputation that would earn my trust is no different from the mainstream media in this respect. I see people I have no trust in complain about how Drudge isn't a "real journalist" because he is not trustworthy. Well, yeah... That's what makes him a journalist.
I trust those who post to slashdot to the extent that I can check them out, and to what checking I've done, posters here are often more accurate, and more inciteful, then anything in the "mainstream" media. It is nice to have a media outlet that actually pokes bullshit stories full of holes within the hour. This is far better than the idiocy that gets printed in most newspapers or news magazines today.
The cake is a pie
"I still believe that people go to sites like Wired News and PC Week because they have this curiosity for the truth and this underlying belief that services [like Slashdot] don't always get it right, and they need an independent verification," said Berinato.
See, they now better. It's Star Trek Generations!
:-)
With that said, let me ask you this.
1. Who knows more about the reliablility of MS code?
A. Someone who as read up on the subject
through a technical book. (MCSE)
B. A Journalist who hears something from the company who made the software.
C. People who have thousands of hours of
experience in dealing with it.
D. Bill Gates
E. Al Gore
On the other hand, he noted that Slashdot
thrives in an environment where people
seek more and more fragmentation in their
lives. "Instead of knowing something
about a lot of things, we know a lot about
a little."
"News for Nerds" is a title. I'd say most people here (At least all of my Comp Sci friends and I) know more than just computer stuff. Granted, we talk about computer stuff on here. Why? Please don't make me fill out another multiple choice question. But anyway, I play most sports decently, read science fiction, play piano, run 2 miles a day, fix cars, listen to all kinds of music, date my wife, talk about the stock market, play pool, and drink mountain dew.
However, I can't spell very well. You'll probably see a few errors in here if your not careful.
Please don't assume something so silly as "They read about computers; therefore, that is all they know about"
ok dokie, that's all I got to say about that.
Civ CTP is awesome! Thanks Loki!
Romans 10:9-10
...is from Mary Jo Foley of ZDNN Tech news.
/.'s credibility somehow? Does Mary Jo Foley have some sort of omniscience that is granted to all journalism graduates that makes what she and others would "highlight" something I need to know, even something I need to live my technical life by? What about the things journalists wouldn't "highlight?" Are those issues that we don't need to worry our pretty little heads about?
/. five times a day...heh. To see what she should have "highlighted" I guess.
/. "weird."
"The slant is so weird," Foley said, citing a recent Slashdot-linked interview on the Microsoft Web site. "What they highlight from the interview is not what a journalist would highlight. They like to highlight things that make Microsoft look stupid."
Again -- "What they highlight...is not what a journalist would highlight." So? Is that supposed to detract from
She then goes on to say that she checks
I have bookmarked Salon, Upside, Andover, CNet, Ars Technia, Macintouch, Slashdot, TechWeb, and The Motley Fool, among others. And what isn't bookmarked is usually found as a link from one of these sites. All have different styles, different priorities and all -- including and especially the "traditional" news avenues -- highlight different issues. After I sift and filter, I think I come up with my business and technical best guess. But without the "non-traditional" avenues, I don't think I'd have the whole story. The inside, "hey, we're sittin' here working with this stuff" story.
And I'm not some kid surfing around for kicks in the basement of the university computer building. I'm an administrative type that recommends and makes hardware purchases -- things like multiple midrange servers, workstations of all flavors, manufacturing shop floor data collection software...but I digress. The point is, I take my technology news seriously because I buy stuff and management expects that stuff to work. I track the technology market from here, among other places.
I guess that makes
Consigned to flames of woe.
I don't get it, the article contradicts itself.
/more/ accurate
On one hand it says "Slashdot is not journalism
but rather just a list of links to other people's
articles", then on the other hand it questions
the accuracy of Slashdot's journalism -- how can
Slashdot be innaccurate if all it has is links to
other people's articles, such as Wired and ZDNN???
Personally I think Slashdot is
because of the moderation system. Eventually the
truth shines through as comments get scored
upward.A great example is yesterday's post of
a guy who claimed he solved the IPv4 addressing
shortage. Now, if their had been no discussion of
the article (as on other news sites) many of us
and many tech jouranlists would have believed the
guy may be on to something. But here on Slashdot
there are many techies who know better and clued
the rest of us in that the guy is a nut -- that's
the kind of insight you get here on Slashdot.
I read Slashdot for the fun of it. Sometimes the news is funny, sometimes serious, sometimes even untrue, but the way in which it is presented is the draw. Also, being run by people who *know* what they're talking about is a big plus. Big sites like ABCNews or ZD may cover more topics, but their writers/editors are rather in the dark about some things.
As for the remark about biased news, name me a newspaper in the US whose editors aren't pro-Republican or pro-Democrat or pro-whatever. Biases exist everywhere. You can count on ABCNews having a slightly more favorable stance for Disney than MSNBC or Yahoo. They'll deny it, but its there; who wants to lose their job because of a flippant comment? Slashdot (i believe) was at first a Linux news site. Naturally, there's going to be a bias against Microsoft. Does that mean the news is any less true? No. Will the way of reporting it be different? Perhaps. But when *you* run the site, *you* get to choose how the information is conveyed.
to end this rant, I think that mainstream journalists need to wake up to the way people are getting their information today. Slashdot attracts viewers because of its individuality and the way news is presented. It may not take over the world, but it is a force to be viewed with respect, not with disgust.
From the article:
"All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority."
wtf??? Isn't the moderation system like this? It seems to fit the description above, albeit it has a few flaws (probably mostly to do with varying personal opinions, tho).
Hrm. Maybe I'm just missing what they're trying to say. Comments?
i sent the author a note about this (and I'm probably not the only one - poor guy :) Anyway, read the following...
All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority. One such system is up and running on eBay, ensuring that buyers and sellers on the auction site can trust one other.
Three paragraphs later...
A version of the eBay system is in place at Slashdot. Participants can earn moderation points, and readers can pick a threshold that will screen posts accordingly. Registered users automatically begin with a higher rating than anonymous users.
Either the article wasn't edited well ("Wait, there is a rating system - better add this paragraph here") or I missed his point...
I like Slashdot and all that, but well over 50% of the content is just re-linking to stories on salon, news.com, or wired
i agree, BUT...
Almost all of the tech news I read fits into one of these categories:
1. Rehash of some company's press release "Cool new product (tm) available Real Soon Now" (I used to work for Gateway and was both saddened and amused when corporate press releases were reworded slightly and printed under a tech reporter's byline major PC magazines).
2. Rehash of come company's financial statement - or "UberTeq posts record sales".
3. Media / corporate collaboration to produce "news" (ZD anyone?).
4. Opinion pieces, where one person lets their thought ricochet around their skull and writes about it. The level of interestingness depends on the cluefulness of the writer.
5. The reporter talked to someone who knew something and then wrote about it.
In short, there is very little originality in tech journalism. Slashdot makes an excellent filter for categories 1-3, and produces categories 4-5 by default.
What are CmdrTaco and Hemos doing when they decide which stories to post? Aren't they serving as editors, and determining what is legitimate and what isn't?
-- Dave Aiello
I liked this story but mostly I was interested in the views of the journalists interviewed. My favorite was the derision of the stories because there is no editor to look things over and approve them. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the process of sites like Slashdot. A perfect example was the story on the 25th about the supposed "new" way the guy found to make the ipv4 address structure last longer. I don't really have the know-how to know if this was alright or not (beyond the horrible grammar) but within 30 minutes of reading the comments here, I knew it was crap because I had a hundred people way more knowledgeable than I am reading the story and picking it apart. There's no way to do something like that in a traditional news source. They expect us to trust our info to some editor we are completely unfamiliar with, no thanks. What made me laugh the most was the fact that the reporter talked about how Slashdot was unreliable, then she says she checks the site 5 times a day looking for news. I guess as soon as she reports it the news will be reliable?