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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Well in an email chat with one of the slashdot staff I was informed that it was going to be given to the "FSF". Though I tried to convience them to put up a poll so that we could decide the favorite charity of our choice. The poll idea may or may not happen, but its definitly going to some charity.
- Seth Finkelstein
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!"
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
Jane's approach to this story is fundamentally flawed because they didn't clear it with Cringley first.
--The basis of all love is respect
"Apparently it is wrong to know things that would upset the liberals' [media's] picture of the world--whether the particular issue involves abortion, Anita Hill, homosexuals or the homeless...Perhaps a classic example of preventing the public from knowing things considered wrong to know was the media treatment of David Brock's book, The Real Anita Hill, when it was published a few years ago. The question is not whether one agrees or disagrees with what the book says. The question is whether the public should be allowed to know what the book says..."
Janes essentially crossed this line by allowing a public forum to take on some of the Media's burden of Omniscience. This event, while seemingly unremarkable [slashdot collaborative writing with Jane's], does set somewhat of a disturbing president from the perspective of the media elite. It quantifies the fact that the public often know more about news than they do. Add to this the Internet, which scares the media to death. This is mostly do to the rapid, and progressive decline in the sale of magazines and newspapers, as an increasingly disgusted public turns to alternative means of information dissemination, free of the politically correct filters or "official" media organizations such as PBS.
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.
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
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
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!
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
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