Slashdot Mirror
Robert Cringley on Slashdot Editing Jane's
cjs writes "In Robert Cringley's
latest Pulpit he talks about the news media's inability to deal
well with technology stories, and in particular states that he feels
the
approach that Jane's took
is `an interesting idea, but ultimately flawed'." Update from RM: Salon also had something to say about Jane's & Slashdot.
So, Jane's figures out who to listen to, who actually know's their anal orifice from a hole in the ground, and is immediately ejected from the journalists club, for violating the unwritten code of conduct: NEVER write the truth - write what you want people to hear
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Flawed? Jane's doesn't print "news" they print information. And what better way then to ask a large group of knowledgible people, such as the /. readers?
Collaboration is at the heart of the DARPAnet... oops, I mean Internet.
Well, perhaps it would have been a better idea to ask Fred Cohen's InfoSec list about 'cyberterrorism', as some of the members might have a better idea of real world scenarios, but I don't think it's such a flawed idea. Sure, it might be a bit biased to open source solutions, but it's a start. On the other hand, at least someone out there knows not to believe in that key cracker that the Sunday Times reported on. As an aside, if an AC is quoted in the Jane's piece, who get the lineage rate?
The problem is, that as a group, 'Slashdot readers' aren't really all that smart. There are plenty among us that ARE super-smart...but seperating the wheat from the chaffe is pretty damn hard...and the only way to do it is to be knowledgable in the first place.
Werd.
The only way to write the news is to write the news. You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. That's why newspapers make corrections.
How is censorship from the newspaper any better? It seems to me that Jane's handed the article right over to what it considered 'the experts' instead of asking comments and reporting them incorrectly.
Apathy is a lesser known virtue.
So, rather than flawed, I would call the approach visionary. One can always hope that it will be the normal thing to do for journalists in unfamiliar territory.
//Wegge
Before we fall all over Cringley, please notice that he doesn't really specify why, exactly, he thinks it's flawed. You might try to read between lines and conclude stuff, but please, don't. I'd love to see him expand on his statements, and I suggest /. invites him to do so here, but before that happens, breathe, count to ten (backwars, in hebrew) before you post.
-John
This guy at least has the decency to write what he knows... Reporting. /. and determined the RSA-512 thing was a hoax, and then the postings about Jane's.
The story, when you get right down to it, is about reporting, and sensationalism.
It even appears that he reads
So: He finds out that a rival posted bogus information, finds another way to get truth in writing (publications, at any rate), and lambasts them as well.
It really seems that he is simply admiting his own sensationalism by writing the article, just one hack writing about how all the other hacks suck...
Computers can only simulate determinism. ~Hermetic.
I'm something of an amature historian, with a particular interest in WWII. As such, I'm already very familiar with Jane's well-earned spotless reputation. They publish a vast array of highly detailed, accurate books on naval ships, aircraft, and other military equipment. The armed forces of the US and others have long looked to them as an authority on everyone's hardware. Historians even used their sources even more often. I find it no surprise that Jane's made the right decision to go with the input from here, rather than that strange article they posted. It fits their pattern.
Jane's has this incredible knack for doing things right, and keeping their facts straight. Too bad Mr. Cringley doesn't understand this.
i wonder if cringely (whoever's writing the column now, anyway) actually bothered to read the original version of the article in question.
cringely makes it sound as if it was some sort of treatise, or even news, about cyberterrorism developments. what it was (or seemed to me, anyway) was a simple piece grasping at the general idea.
no points to cringely on this one...if rule one is 'if you're going to print the news, print the news,' then surely rule number two is 'read what you write about.'
besides...how on earth can anyone make a judgement about how well this model will work before the article actually comes out??
-derek
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
It seems to me that Janes' submission to slashdot was almost a type of peer review. An article/paper was submitted to Slashdot for review for commentary. It was only after some very valid points were made that the editors of Jane's decided to write a new article. They are still the journalistic entity in the equation. This community just happens to have some independent observers who aren't afraid to share their opinion(as well as several people who probably shouldn't:) and only Jane's has control over content.
IMHO, of course
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
It has been the great hypocrisy of American Journalism for the last 100 years to think that it operates objectively. If this were true, we would not have had Pulitzer, Hurst, Winchell, et al. giving us the news as they see it. All Cringely did was remind us of our own shortcomings. So what if he thinks that the Jane's incident was flawed. At least that journal had the temerity to do some research.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Janes didn't come to Slashdot to find Experts; nor did they want some "cheap proofreading" as Cringley seems to indicate. Johan J Ingles-le Nobel happened to be familiar with Slashdot, and knew that, in general, we are a widely knowledgable group. We are not the de facto go-to group for information on Cyberterrorism, or Journalistic standards, or even how to run websites (Not that you don't do great Rob). But, over all, with the large number of people from differing backgrounds that come here and contribute to the community, we're a pretty good source of information.
Cringley seems to think that Janes came to us because they were lazy. I don't think so; I think Johan recognized a poorly researched article, and wanted to bounce it off of as many people with in as short a time as possible. So he came here. If Mt. Cringley would have read the rest of the second Janes article, he would see that they were, in addition to pulling information from here, planning on contacting people who are experts.
We're not the Encyclopedia Cyberia by any means here at Slashdot, but we do make a pretty good peer review board
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This guy basically rails against whatever he can find, and doesn't seem to do much research. For example, he points out the .cc domain thing, and wonders if maybe the next to do this will be the Christmas Islands. Well, if he'd bothered to do the research, he'd know that .cx is the Christmas Islands, and anyone can buy a domain there....
;-)
On the Jane's thing, he didn't even know how it turned out, he was just talking about the initial request. I find it amusing that he thinks asking Slashdot for information comprises "censorship". What would he think a technical editor is
Overall, pretty much content-free.
And wht do you expect from this blow-hole? He never stops whining. Perhaps JANES should have asked for his expert opinion.
I feel so dirty, this is the first Cringley column I've read since the last time he was mentioned in slashdot. This guy is the Rush Limbaugh of the technology circuit, thats the persona he's trying to generate.
So, does he have a point? Yup, he does, he says: "You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat,", unfortunately he then continues on that "censorship of the nerdarati is still censorship" without going into why offering an enlightened opinion is censorship.
The community on slashdot was no different than any other source. Jane's enlistment of slashdot was just an unusual means of getting technical expertise. Jane won't be posting the entire thread complete with the usual slew of "First post", "Malda sucks", "Cyberterrorism is [cool|bad|yellow]", they'll be carefully selecting pertinent opinions and statements. That's journalism.
Cringley's point of view seems to be: Blurt out your opinion, apologize later. Wonderful, except that Jane's tries to keep a good reputation. If they do this then they're spending reputation. It's no different than if their books on military hardware maintained that Canada had orbiting launch platforms capable of launching creme pies at any government official.
Polling slashdot was only one way that they could've gotten the expertise. They could've talked to security consultants which would've been a more mainstream way to go.
Gee, literacy does suffer on the net!
:-|
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
- Seth Finkelstein
>This is an interesting idea but ultimately flawed, I think. The only way to write the news is to write the news.
And Janes isn't NEWS.
Janes is (supposed to be) in-depth analysis. Janes (obvoiusly) has no internal/on the payroll talent that was able to create a viable 'cyberterrorism' article, and they knew it...at least knew it enough to take what their 'expert' had written and had it reviewed here.
Janes *ALSO* had a small enough ego to determine that a 'peer' review was worthwhile. Kudos for them.
I personally am e-mailing Cringly and asking how what Janes did is ANY different than a beat reporter interviewing a group of people, then creating an article based on the interview.
Because all Janes did was to ask *US* to be interviewed, and we submitted. Janes ask some questions, and many people answered those questions. It only LOOKS different because the proccess was done out in the open, for all to see, rather than behind closed doors.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
The only way to write the news is to write the news. You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. That's why newspapers make corrections.
So now its most important to write what you think might be "facts" because, god help us, these "facts" might be censored by experts in the field. Sounds like a great rationalization to keep writing the sensationalist and bogus articles that now proliferate the media.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are a reporter wouldn't you want to talk to people who know what they are talking about if you intend to write an article? I take it Mr. Cringely would think someone working in marketing would be a better person to ask about computer security than the people who are actually in charge of security. Or how about asking Walt the school janitor how to teach a class on physics?
To quote Ambrose Bierce: "Reporter, n. A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it with a tempest of words"
Killing spammers is too good for them.
uh, how is asking people who know to give comment on an article in prepublicaton, "censorship by the nerderati?"
the self-importance of journalists, and the arrogantly unrealistic view they often take of their profession will eventually destroy the credibility of news reporting.
And press is the fourth branch of government in any democratic state.
I could see his point in a "general market" publication, but Jane's is a specialty publication aimed at a very detail-oriented crowd. Cyber warfare is not a subject that most people understand yet, so Jane's turned to an audience that was likely to have a lot of real experts, and submitted it for (essentially) peer review. Upon peer review, the paper did not stand up on it's own, so it was canned.
What's interesting here is Jane's response, publishing an article composed of the best and most insightful of the comments on the original paper. That's different. But the peer review concept is as old as the ages.
What we need to be aware of here, as well, is that by the standards of Jane's knowledge, even script kiddies are security experts. That's not a knock, it's just to point out that they aren't up to speed on this subject yet.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
As someone else in this discussion mentioned, Jane's isn't about news, but about information.
I fail to see the censorship Cringely seems to be perceiving ("...You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. ..."). Who said anything about censorship? I took the process that Jane's used to be more of a "peer review" process, (not that I'm *accusing* Slashdot of being quite up to that standard yet) whereby they verifed their results against the potentially more knowledgeable community. I have to ask, what is wrong with getting it right the first time you publish an article not "...That's why newspapers make corrections..."?
"All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"
and I suggest /. invites him to do so here
/.
I feel we should too, or, compile a list of questions and qualms and send them his way, so that he may write another puplit on why this pulpit was so vague, making unproveable assertions,
"Forget the Mafia, this sort of device would be in active use right now in Russia and that country would suddenly not be so poor. Things would be a lot more screwed-up in the world than they actually are. "
"This is an interesting idea but ultimately flawed, I think. The only way to write the news is to write the news. You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. That's why newspapers make corrections. "
and wandering so tangently.
" At $100 per coke.cc, intel.cc, and cringely.cc, there's millions to be made, though I suppose there will still be the risk of losing it all in 12 microseconds, which is quicker even than at the track. "
Although I do realize the importance of such an issue, if this is true. If it is, I find it strange that we're learning of it only now (well, I am, though I'm sure some of you already have), and I wonder why it hasn't been posted on
However, as we all know, each is entitled to his/her own opinion, and I'll be more eager to hear his, though, when he is more eager to elaborate, provide support, and arrange his argument in a more logical, concise, and integrated manner.
Insert mind here.
Since when is the slashdot crowd considered experts, or even worthy of doing peer review? do you know who is on the other side? i will give my "expert" opinion, or correct something in the article, and all i am is some script kiddie trying to be all hardcore. i call it irresponsible. plus, the arrogance level of the posts is amazing. i read slashdot for the occasional insightful remarks, but most of the time it's someone acting like the know everything, when usually they know very little.
How is what Janes asked the Slashdot readership to do censorship ? Surely censorship is when an powerful organisation stops something from being published, not a publisher asking for "expert" advise on whether the technical content of an article is correct to decide whether it is of value.
I think the internet should have it's own form of information hunting, farming and gathering:
Journalists just have to accept that one person writing information is always going to be less informative that a thousand people putting together their collective knowledge on that piece.
Paper journalism has evolved from the idea of just giving information, to becoming political, or as a tool of the individual journalist. But if people with access to the internet want something closer to straight facts, they'll go for faqs, ask slashdots, usenet discussions and the like. Of course they are still biased, but they do offer a wider opinion space than individually made work.
I've recently volunteered to put together something on the web about an important educator. It took me about half an hour to work out that if I write it all myself, it'll be like a high school essay: ultimately biased, incorrect, and limited to what I can do and what time I have to do it.
So I went open source, and said. Ok, it's a faq. Start asking questions, start answering them. The work will build on it's own (with some help from me) and will be much more complete than what I'd have come up with after studying for ages.
That's the functionality the internet has. It's pointless not to use it. Paper Journalism should stay on paper.
Ale
I think Cringely missed the whole point. Jane's editor recognized that there are many "experts" on cyberterrorism with their own agenda (political or financial). He went to a less biased, more accurate source of info. Perhaps if Jane's quoted Louis Freeh (or Jane Reno)on the the dangers of cyberterrorism, that would constitute an unbiased, reliable and knowledgable source. Cringely, how do you research stories? I wonder now.
Stop supporting fascism, stop paying taxes.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Andrew Leonard in Salon has a piece ('Open Source Journalism') too. He is more positive to the /. comment process and says "sites like Slashdot are pioneering new territory as they facilitate access to that knowledge, to the great and lasting benefit of us all".
Lars
Lars
--
Reality or nothing.
If they do this then they're spending reputation. It's no different than if their books on military hardware maintained that Canada had orbiting launch platforms capable of launching creme pies at any government official.
WHO TOLD YOU???
I mean...yes, you're right;)
*goes off to reset targeting parameters...*
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
"Maybe this was in the minds of the folks at Jane's, the British publisher of defense information, who this week threw their cyber terrorism research at the nerds who read Slashdot, hoping for some inexpensive proofreading to keep Jane's from making their own big mistakes. This is an interesting idea but ultimately flawed, I think. The only way to write the news is to write the news. You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship. That's why newspapers make corrections."
--Robert X. Cringely--
GRRR.... If you actually read this whole article you will see that this paragraph about Jane's doesn't even fit. The article refers to news agencies and the way the print or release the news and then puts in this part about Jane's. Well he's flawd by including Jane's in this article because it doesn't publish news, it publishes an informational reference guide. There is a difference in news articles and information reference guides. Jane's did exactly what anyone reading its articles would have wanted them to do. They got factual information and not distorted media BS.
"Nerderati" - for understanding of my feeling on this new addition to my vocabulary please see the above GRRR
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Or does his article contradict itself? He chastises the London Sunday Times for not checking their facts, then attacks Jane's for their attempt at getting the story right.
:-)
I think Jane's realized something that more media outlets are going to understand as technology stories become evan more popular. The audience for these stories tend to be knowledgable on the subject and can be very critical of flawed articles. I can't tell you how many articles I've read that explain the Y2K bug and obviously didn't know what they were talking about. So Jane's gave their audience the chance to correct the story before it went to print, which I think was a great idea. It's refreshing to see the media admit it doesn't know everything.
BTW, has anybody driven the new 2000 Mitsubishi Nerderati? That's a sweet ride...
human://billy.j.mabray/
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
You really have to ask yourself, do you want to go and start inviting elitist journalist types who look down on us? I think the conceit of the media will be the only thing that keeps slashdot from turning into zdnet.
I may (or not) have read a Cringley article or two linked out of /. in the past, but I doubt I will in the future, or at the very least won't take him seriously at all. I mean, the guy doesn't even know what side of the fence he's trying to be on. Check this out, from the first bit of his rant dealing with good news / bad news:
./ers: Don't let this guy's rant on tech tie you up in knots, when he obviously doesn't know jack-shit about journalism, a subject he _should_ know something about.
"The first [principle] says that people aren't really interested in good news, that bad news grabs our attention in a way good news never could. Frankly, I don't buy this."
Then later (re: Associated Press)
"It was easier to sell stories about bad news than about good news. The more people who died or who were at risk of dying, the better. Bad news sells, which is why we cover so much bad news. It is as simple as that."
Simple? Simple-minded perhaps. Which is it Bob: Bad news sells - or bad news doesn't sell? You can't have it both ways.
My advice to
I think some of you are taking this a little bit too seriously. The place where he mentions Slashdot and Jane's is just one little paragraph in a bigger article.
I understand if you don't like Cringely's writing style, but I don't think that this article was that bad. I disagree with Cringely about what Jane's and Slashdot did being censorship, but the reaction around here seems a little out of line. So his views a news coverage are a little conservative. Deal with it.
We should learn to take criticism (and even ignorance) a little more calmly. I mean, I can't imagine what the reaction have been if Cringely had said something like, "I don't really see the point of Beowulfs." Or even, "I think Gnome is worse than KDE."
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
From the Salon article:
>They are helping journalists get the story right, which is a far cry from exerting censorship.
I have no ide a what Cringly is opposed to. Most of the comments on the Jane article;
1. Were of good quality over-all. (way better than the original article.)
2. Could have been easily rejected/ignored by the editors of Jane. They are they ones who make the decision what to publish, not slashdotters.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Salon also has a piece on this and the Cringely article http://ww w.salonmagazine.com/tech/log/1999/10/08/geek_journ alism/index.html. They're pretty favorable (hint: they read both articles, unlike Cringely)
--jeff
Ever consider that this author is just trying to take advantage of the /. effect and generate traffic to his article to boost his meager name on the internet?
/. for feedback) with no good reason other than "that's the way to write news". Then he has the audacity to call it censorship.
/. readers.
/. enough times and generates enough controversy, he's bound to find his name appearing on some of the bigger news sites now that the world is starting to be watch us.
He takes a decidedly "establishment" point of view (being that of the traditional press) then blasts anti-establishment activity (Jane's soliciting
Then he "conveniently" starts talking about why no one is paying attention to the whole ".cc" issue with a pronounced pro-business angle. The general issue of companies going after individuals that own desireable domain names has long been a rallying point for
How many of you felt angry as you were reading his article? I started to, then I realized what he was trying to do. If he attacks
On the one hand:
1. The signal-to-noise in Slashdot makes it only so much better than Usenet for this purpose.
2. Journalists have a duty to learn their topic well enough not to need Slashdot before writing about it. Asking Slashdot for proofreading is tantamount to admitting profound ignorance of a topic.
3. Slashdot writers have clue, but that does not make them unbiased.
On the other hand:
1. Journalists in general are profoundly clueless about things like net security.
2. So, one might as well admit it.
3. Jane's has done much better by trolling Slashdot for revisions than many publications that have printed clueless pap and then, contrary to Cringely's prescription not bothered to print corrections. For examples, visit Adam Penenberg's column archive. In particular, this one, in which CNNfn and ZDTV, printed false details from one of his stories and refused to correct them.
It should be noted that Cringly's article was written before Jane's decided to scrap the original article. He was opperating under the assumption that Janes would simply modify the original article or not publish it at all based on /.'s comments. If Jane's had gone this route, I think a lot of us would have lost a lot of respect for them. The article was too flawed to be simply "Fixed" by the adition of a few comments, and by not publishing an article at all, they would have been ignoreing a potentaly important topic. I believe that what Cringly was objecting to was the plan of action that he (and I would suspect most of the readership od /.) expected Jane's to take, not what they did.
Cringley really blew this one. Jane's is not news, it is reference material. Unlike news, which speed of dissemination is paramount Jane's is supposed to be more scholarly. If you don't do some research you are in big trouble.
You have to do it the best that you can then take the heat, because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship.
Why would you want to talk to people before writing a news article? What were they thinkink? You should just release the tripe and then get all the publicity of being an idiot (dvorak), or pissing people off. Well, that might have worked in the 18-20th century, but dammit, how hard is it to do research now?
Asking expert opinion before writing an article is usually a pretty damn good idea. Censorship in this sense must mean "not publishing erroneous information", that's not censorship, that's editing. Yellow journalism has now become the norm, not the edge. Why has people's trust in the media dropped off so sharply? I'll give you four hints: Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, Ted Turner, and Lowry Mays.
Poor article by Cringely. Media to the People!
+&x
I'm just wondering though, what the following clause meant, in context of the article...
...because the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship.
:)
Other than that, this guy might be "afraid" that ubiquitous "Expert sources" might be obsolete. If that is the case, then the answer is probably yes and no.
Or he might be "afraid" that the concept of the Editor is obsolete. I think not. We just tossed in some knowledge and opinion, we don't have to sift through it.
______________________________
It's no different than if their books on military hardware maintained that Canada had orbiting launch platforms capable of launching creme pies at any government official.
b oy/ComedyCentral/Illuminati/Bozo-the-clo wn conspiracy! Their eventual hope is to be able to launch a creme pie at any person in the world within 0.05 seconds of that person uttering the words, "I sure could use a creme pie."
Except then it would be the truth!
It's part of the NSA/CIA/FBI/RSA/KGB/CHS/NBC/CBS/HBO/Showtime/Play
Right now, even as I type, armies of trained nanobots are scurrying through your room, implanting hidden circuts to listen for the words of what they call "the creme pie death wish"... The launching platform actually is the Hubble telescope. It creates it's creme pies by using a solar oven (which you can't see because it's totally black, using alien technology to mix the paint) to gather heat from the sun to cook the pie crusts, which NASA has been delivering slowly, for testing purposes. The creme is made using a wonderful new superconducting technology which has been kept secret by the oil companies, because the creme gets 120 MPG when mixed with dryer lint.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really after you.
:-)
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
One of the things I like best about /. is that most bull***t gets ferreted out rather quickly. Just don't read a discussion for a couple days and let it settle and stratify (word?). Then set your threshold, LOGIN so I can know if you're an idiot or an expert(the default assumption for ACs is "idiot"), be critical of too good to be true stories (and Jesux), and quit bithcing and moaning.
BTW: if you missed the poll, a third of the people who frequent this place are students, take that for what it's worth.
+&x
Check out the Jane-Slashdot interaction on salon. It says:
Cringely made his comments before Jane's announced it was killing the original story. One can only imagine his dismay now. News flash! Raging nerds silence journalist!
Cringely's reaction would now be quite different: after Jane not only subjected itself for "censorship" but also decided to use it!
Also, somebody here mentioned this is like peer review. Well, is it? When was the last time one sent a paper to a journal and the editor decided to publish the referee report instead!!
The Jane-Slashdot story is a unique first...
Janes only knew enough to suspect that they had a crappy article, but not enough to write a better one... I wonder why they have such faith in themselves in being able to judge the /. contributions as any better? Most people here arn't going to have in depth knowledge pertaining to cyberterrorism, but most of us are going to be pretty opinionated, and well capable of spouting of reams of semi-informed good sounding hi-tech bullshit. I think Cringely was dead-on: there's no substitute for real independent research.
...that Cringely makes a huge gaffe throughout this piece. The RSA512 story ran in The Times, not the Sunday Times, which is a separate publication with its own staff. He wastes a healthy few hundred words criticising the wrong paper.
I can see where he made this error: the URL that was run in Slashdot (and previously, in NTK) had Sunday Times in the address. Both papers share the same Website.The implication here is that Cringely, knowingly or not, has been picking his up his news stories from the "nerderati" themselves. It seems odd that Cringely would take advantage of Websites distributing tips like this, but decline to use the parallel error-checking mechanisms that sit alongside them.
I understand what he means about being able to state your opinion without worrying about censure: but discovering the facts to wrap your opinion around is still a scalable art.
It has to be said that the most humourous part of Cringley's article was "the censorship of the nerderati is still censorship" - let me get this straight; if a teacher tells her student "You have spelt that wrong", it's censorship ? There is a line being censored, and being corrected. It seems that Cringley really doesn't like either. But saying he doesn't like being censored is a lot easier to take.
>7.Cringley seems to be very hostile to just about everything.
Could the answer of Cringley's hostility be in his own article? - Sensationalism. What better way to attract all of those eyeballs than by being sensationalist.
After all, being dull doesn't get you very much attention.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
That way anyone who has any beefs with him can take them up directly.
I'm sure it would turn out interesting if nothing else as he's certainly an interesting writer and person, even if you think he's something of a dolt.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
However, Slashdot is not a peer review body. I've had scientific papers reviewed, and this is nothing like it...
Where's Dan Farmer? Where's Wietse Venema? Or any other academically published security expert with serious real world expertise. What we have here is a gathering of enthusiasts which may (and I mean, may) just contain a handful of experts. That's not enough...
Cringely is an experienced journalist who knows the value of good, consistent sources. Slashdot, for all its good points, is not consistent. And it most definitely isn't journalism...
S.
So which is it, Cringely? I'm making the assumption that which news sells is a fair indication of interest, but I don't really think that's much of a stretch. Cringely seems to be more interested in accusing the AP than in addressing the fundamental root of the problem (bad news sells), which he alternates between denying and admitting within the space of three paragraphs.
Later, he criticizes the Sunday Times for printing an incorrect article on code-cracking:
...and then, criticizes Jane's for soliciting comments on its cyber-terrorism article
If I'm a magazine editor, and I receive a story submission which contains obvious factual errors, am I censoring the author by spiking the story? That's an editor's job, for god's sake. I don't accept the argument that it's better to let a poorly written article run and then apologize for it than to can it outright.
With that said, other /. readers have already pointed out that Cringely doesn't explain how asking for our opinion of the article is any different than other fact checking that the original author should have done. He merely asserts that we censored the article. This brings to mind the following question: if instead, it had been Cringely who previewed the original article (heavens forfend), and if he had panned it, and if Jane's had dropped the story: would Cringely be the one guilty of censorship?
My theory: Cringely has attacked in this column the concepts of journalistic objectivity, editorial judgement, and fact verification by third parties. Is it possible that he's afraid that if every artcile went through a review process like the Jane's CT article, he'd have nothing to gripe about?
I don't intend this to be flamebait, but I wonder if the positive attention from Jane's is being treated as some sort of external validation for a lot of Slashdot readers.
Cringley wrote,
"Maybe this was in the mind of the folks at Jane's , the British publishers of defense information who through this week their cyber terrorism research at the ners who read Slashdot, hoping for some inexpensive proofreading to keep Jane's from making their own big mistakes."
A condecending statement, to be sure, but it seems accurate to me. Let's face it, this was an easy way for Jane's to get some quick, free information. As to anyone getting paid for freely submitted opinions, I'll believe that when I see it. I have a great deal of respect for Jane's. I own several of their fine publications. Just thought someone should play devil's advocate here. This seems like yet another "us vs. them" argument.
Maybe I'm too much of a cynic. Or maybe Cringley was just trolling for hits via the Slashdot effect. Hey, it is the easiest way today for any technology writer to insure a massive number of hits!
Contrary to popular belief, the standard free or "open source" ass most people are born with is Not sufficient for their needs.
With the release of the new M$ASS your performance in all related areas will improve in ways too numerous to actually provide any factual information here.
Now Pundits for the "Open Orifice" or "FreeASS" movements will try to convince you that M$ASS doesn't live up to it's claims:
"My Friend's new M$ASS caused such severe bloating due to its lack of functionality that he exploded"
Signed -- Some deadbeat loser*
Now seriously we have determined that the problems in this and all the similar cases were due not to problems with M$ASS, but rather with 3rd party food which was not on the approved list.
No one using M$FOOD, due to be released at some date in the future, have had any of these problems. I think this clears up any misconceptions on this point.
* Names changed to protect the innocent.
we are always are on the cutting edge. So, I personaly think that students add quite a bit to Slashdot.
Students, as a whole, are also a lot more likely to spout off as experts, when there are merely knowledgable. Youthful exhuberance adds a lot to a lively discussion, but aged wisdom gives it a foundation to build from. Not trying to start a war here, just that I remember thinking as a student how stupid the world was, and now I see, in many areas, that I was the idiot. (this is only 3 years out of school mind you, and a lot of the world still seems stupid).
+&x
I personally think that Mr. Cringely has a good point here. For certain, using something like /. for free technical editing has limited possibilities - I mean, while it's generally possible to winnow out the people who know what they're talking about from those who don't, it isn't always. All it takes is a subject that not many people here know much about (say, Transmeta's operations), and a well developed gift of gab, and yes, even we, the "nerderati" can be fooled.
Comments welcome!
bp
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
I find the constant relabelling of various mechanisms by which bad ideas are weeded out as 'censorship' to be kind of amusing, and sort of dangerous.
I wonder if the various and diverse groups of people who do this sort of relabelling realize that they're weakening an important and appropriately alarming word in the hopes of lending its strength to their opinion?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I've read a number of his articles and have yet to see something really interesting, insightful, or useful, but maybe he used to write good stuff.
+&x
As has been stated in other posts, Mr. C was somewhat brief in his condemnation of Jane's. I thought what Jane's did was pretty good, and given the reputation of their publications, I feel Mr. C was pulling a cheap shot.
I used to work for a private - now public subsidiary of a LARGE aircraft/defense contrator type corp - business jet manufacturer, and Jane's was very much a well-thumbed presence in the Corporate Library. So much for credibility.
Sometimes Mr. C is okay, but he really screwed the pooch on this one.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
That's what I don't understand. Everytime that I have thought I was going to read something that was interesting I get a ton of BS that supposedly has something to do with his rant then the true rant and a unsupported conclusion. Case in point - he starts off with Bad News Popularity vs Good New Popularity. Okay, fine. He talks about the mistake the Sunday Times has done with RSA 512, okay I can keep up - this is Bad News at it's best. Then he critizes us because Jane wants to double check the research the journalist did - which obiviously wasn't up to par. Then his conclusion is that the paper's should run with the story because censorship is still censorship even if the story is wrong and the paper's still can print the corrections at a later date. (And someplace where no one really reads)
/.er's to help verify the research. But why since his article was originally about Bad News - aren't reporters supposed to research their work before writing. Which according to the publisher of Jane and us was not good enough. But we didn't censor the story just filled in the facts - the correct facts.
Well, why is he ranting about Bad News in the first place. I know he is critizing Jane for asking us
I guess Cringley has a lot to cringe about then. The story seems to be more about his fear! That if the research on tech issues isn't good enough then why should anyone print the material which of course means the reporter doesn't get paid. And why should the reporter get paid for doing a lousy job. If I did that I would be out of job.
So, the real message should be - watch out because if our voices are being heard about Bad News then the new should not be printed in the first place. And the journalist shouldn't be paid for bad reporting just because it's always been that way doesn't make it right.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
The topics and discusions covered tend to draw techical/scientific people here. When I ask my friends if they ever read
I have things setup here so that I see the highest rated comments first.
I think that the moderation system does a pretty good job of bringing the best comments to the surface. You find fewer "crack pots" spouting off here because they get slammed or moderated down if they don't present credible arguments. There is also less "silly science" here because no matter what people write about, someone here is enough of an expert to know if they have the facts straight. I often find that the comments are as or even more interesting then the articles they are about.
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
Geez. Just exactly why does slashdot seem to attract so many smart people? Could it be that moderators are manually and painstakingly rating the comments so people don't have to look at crap. Without the ability to filter out the garbage, slashdot comments would bear a remarkable resemblance to... usenet news.
The moderation process isn't given enough credit. In my humble opinion, a person's perception of slashdot is based on their comment threshold. Since I only read comments at 3 or above, I have a very high opinion of slashdotters. (I read at 3 so I'm not bothered by comments like this one.) :-)
Let's give the moderators some credit here. These are people making the decisions about what you do or don't see on slashdot. No computer program or message filter can accomplish this. It takes genuine human beings to do this.
He? Why does everyone think that only males read /. There are a few females too. ;-)
Johan J Ingles-le Nobel,
Jane's Intelligence Review.