The Slashdot Interval 120
Strange that a British magazine for spooks and a techno-geek culture website would combine to provide a brief, tantalizing and significant look at the shape media might take in the 21st Century.
Two weeks ago, Jane's Intelligence Review posted a draft of a cyber-terrorism article on Slashdot, and asked for feedback. As anyone who has ever written for this site could predict, they got plenty, much of it merciless.
But Jane's didn't respond as media historically have - by publishing the piece anyway, or spouting defensive declarations about how great it was, or simply ignoring what it was hearing.
Instead, Jane's decided it couldn't afford to be wrong on a subject like this, acknowledged the value of much of the criticism, scrapped the piece and started over, even offering to pay critics whose comments ultimately get included in the article.
Bravely -- by contemporary media standards -- Jane's not only embraced interactivity but took it many steps farther than almost any serious and influential publication ever has. This is the antithesis of the way conventional American journalism works. It's hard to even imagine a Washington reporter putting a story up on an editorial website and asking for help before he or she publishes it.
The Jane's/Slashdot experience was ground-breaking, a precedent for an evolving model of digitally-influenced journalism, a step into the interval (an interval is defined in my dictionary as a break, gap, or opening, an interspace) that will transform journalistic institutions, whether they know it or not, like it or not. So far, their answer has been a resounding "no" on both counts.
The traditional model of information distribution has been closed, secretive and non-interactive. Publishers sign confidential contracts with writers. The process of researching and writing books is hidden. Newspapers, newsmagazines, publishers and TV stations make editorial decisions and preparations behind closed doors. Reporters simply prepare their work, then release it to the public. Criticisms, feedback, suggestions can all be heeded or not. The result is a widening chasm between the creators of information and its consumers.
The current hallmark of information industries is a pervasive kind of bewilderment: what do people want? What will they buy? Why can't we pick and choose for them any more?
Since media won't open up their processes to the public, their writers and reporters benefit only from the handful of people they've spoken to, the relatively narrow spectrum of information they've been able to access in the reporting and research process. Jane's and Slashdot have just re-written the rules in ways that have implications for all kinds of journalists, in new and old media.
Jane's decided to correct mistakes and gather all possible information before, not after, the piece was published - the complete reverse of the way mainstream media have worked for decades, and a fundamental reason they've become so arrogant, disconnected and mistrusted.
The Slashdot Interval is not a threat. It offers hope and shows the way. It doesn't undermine the way media work, it moves it forward. Journalists editors producers have a seminal opportunity: they ought to seize on it, experiment with it, expand its applications.
Fear of real interactivity has been publishing and journalism's biggest problems in confronting the shift from top-down information models to the many-to-many forms evolving on and driven by the Net and the Web.
But the Web is a godsend for reporters and publications that value truth and reason over dogma and control.There's no reason that The Washington Post, Newsweek, The New York Times or CBS News couldn't use the Web to test the value, accuracy and clarity of their material. A reporter covering the Pentagon could hear from scores of people working there before writing about Defense Department morale or spending programs. Medical writers could seek help from geneticists, phycisists and bioethicists before they write gee-whiz stories about new fertility drugs. Technology reporters could evaluate new software and hardware before they write gee-whiz stories about them.
Think how many errors could be prevented, bugs eliminated, consumers saved, distortions altered, or useless or ill-informed information published, if this became a media model.
Jane's wasn't forced to change its story as a result of the Slashdot input. A visionary named Johan J. Ingles-le Nobel, their deputy editor, saw interactivity as an opportunity, not an intrusion.
It was a demonstration of what can happen when the ethos behind the online open source movement fuses with a rare open source journalistic instinct. "When you're confronted with a prospective article about cyberterrorism, as a journalist you know this is a massive emerging topic and that it will make a great story," Ingles-le Nobel wrote on Slashdot after his request for help. "After all, you've got to be both blind and deaf to have missed the unprecedented emergence of this thing known as the Internet, and that the day will come when, like anything else, it comes to be seen as a tool in the armoury of those that seek to harm and terrorise. Yet the very nature and vocabulary of the subject precludes a thorough understanding unless you're a programmer in the first place."
The Jane's editor was delighted that Slashdot readers - who include some of the most knowledgeable hackers, geeks and nerds on the Internet -- offered help. He got more than 250 posted comments and 35 e-mails from psychologists and network analysts, and many of the responses, he said, were insightful and knowledgable.
This is a common online experience. Journalists and others may be put off by the flaming and hostility of public threads and posting areas, but e-mail tends to be radically different: thoughtful, useful and intelligent.
Ingles-le Nobel said he decided to scrap the original piece. Instead, "I'm going to cull your comments together and make a better, sharper feature out of it."
This ought to be standard procedure, not a bold move. But in the age of anonymous sources, little or no accountability and almost manic competitiveness, it's nearly unprecedented. Magazines and publishers (newspapers, too, if they're still around) can open up their editorial agendas, perhaps posting lists of stories and topics underway. They can solicit opinions and ideas from a much greater range of sources than the pundits, academics, ideologues and lobbyists who dominate media.
Slashdot, for example, sees all its readers as potential contributors and critics, radically broadening its corps of information suppliers. Writers publish their work in conjunction with criticism and response.
Deja.com also sees users as a virtual army of consumer reporters. Amazon.com has always made it a point to highlight readers' reviews as well as published critics'. Consumer critics don't have to be paid professionals; purchasers and users of products would be highly credible.
In my own case, without quite recognizing it, I used some techniques of the Slashdot Interval in a book about to be published, called "Geeks." Several years ago, I posted the original thesis of the idea on Hotwired, the website of Wired Magazine's digital empire, where I was a columnist at the time. I got an enormous amount of feedback, thousands of responses.
I took this process farther when I began writing on Slashdot, putting my Geek-focused ideas out in the open for consideration and feedback. The responses made me re-think some of my conclusions. This process works almost continuously on online writers, as the feedback, criticism and additional information constantly influences writing on given subjects.
I got to make many of my inevitable mistakes during the pre-publication process; I even found the two geeks who became the primary subjects of the book online. Before I'd written a word, I'd had the chance to talk to hundreds of geeks. My stereotypes, misconceptions and inaccuracies were challenged when they should have been - before, not after, they were published.
This - not technological skill or programming know-how -- makes writers and writing better, more informed, more credible. It doesn't take power away from the writer - I still get to write what I want - but it unmasks the conceit that the writer is unreachable, all-knowing, or beyond assistance.
The Slashdot Interval may not prove relevant for every story in every publication. On fast-breaking stories, for example, there really isn't time. With simple announcements, there isn't a need. But Jane's recognized the limitations of reporting a sensitive, complicated story and used the Internet to get the best help available. At some point, the writer/journalist/producer/author has to pull back, stop gathering and sorting information, and take responsibility for his or her story. All publishing can't always be communal.
Routine announcements of fact or incidents could be presented in the traditional way. But stories about science, politics, law, medicine or other specialties could be tested in advance with knowledgeable constituencies to ensure that they're as accurate as possible, knowing and well-informed.
This idea sounds nightmarish to most journalists; it means the sharing of responsibility and the lost of total control over content - something every journalism school in America teaches as a sacred tenet. But it was Jane's that was practicing the best kind of journalism, by experimenting with journalism that is interactive, opened up to the public, prepared to listen.
With any luck, the Slashdot Interval will become an especially infectious meme. Perhaps Twenty-first Century media have just been Open Sourced.
So much the better.
Peer Review (Score:3)
Nice Start. (Score:1)
However, I'm not confident that we can consider this single article to be the sign that things are changing on a grand scale. Even a handful of magazines doing something like this wouldn't constitute a big shift in the paradigm. Mainstream media still has a stangle hold on the information the average person receives. Let's not get too congratulatory yet.
All in all, I think that this is a great start. It could become a template for other such atricles. I definately think it's the best way to report on such issues. We just have a long way to go before we see this happening frequently.
...because it's commentary, not news. (Score:2)
It is the process of interpretation that meakes sense out of random news events.
A few points... (Score:2)
This ought to be standard procedure, not a bold move
This makes a couple of (IMO) invalid assumptions:
1. News is intended to inform. It isn't; it's intended to get advertising. In the case of magazines such as Jane's, the best way of doing this is to have the best, most-informed articles. This is demonstrably not the case for newspapers, and don't get me started about TV news. In these media, you want something that's simplistic and won't offend anyone. Facts are used only as a last resort.
2. Another assumption is that everyone's thought of it and discarded it. Now that
Snide Katz-bashing
I took this process farther when I began writing on Slashdot
Was this before or after you invented the internet?
Who turned on the Katz story generator? (Score:2)
Two weeks ago, Jane's editor decided to be both counts. Yet the criticism ethos behind the feedback: suggestions can all possible, information and Slashdot, interval in my Geek culture website would combine to be standard procedure, not, only embraced interactivity as a Washington reporter putting a massive emerging topic and well as possible, information reporting a tool in the handful of sources than the most journalists. This is hidden; culture website and sign and intelligent. In a media with writers could hear from the traditional model for spooks and a demonstration media model for example, there before not, after (the best help before they ought to correct mistakes and distribution has ever has been closed before he got plenty much of the public their wrote on and vocabulary of this the a rare open for the antithesis of journalism a pervasive kind of people want)?
Thoughtful, useful and started over dogma and writing mistrusted. It a godsend for his or useless or incidents could predict, they pay can happen when they can all, kinds of people want but in ways that value of fact or ill not only embraced interactivity as a step into the Internet to the original piece anyway, or no reason over even offering to the unprecedented; emergence of the way. Criticisms, feedback. Has ever has ever has. So far, an editorial decisions and shows the Web to most journalists it, forward. But in a media with criticism and old media with criticism, and a techno geek culture website and feedback.
As the Slashdot putting a widening chasm between the Internet and lobbyists who became a result of journalism, works almost any serious and many steps farther than the Slashdot Interval is a virtual army of people want but Jane's and its applications. The public, threads and hostility of a British magazine for consideration feedback; suggestions can happen when the better. Magazines and gather all its readers as a pervasive virtual demonstration of the Slashdot that value, of the Washington reporter putting a programmer in my conclusions. Jane's Intelligence Review presented media have implications for this, ought to provide harm and others may be communal: Technology reporters.
With a story journalism that seek to be heeded or spouting her story, in the better. All its story as the piece anyway, and its story; up source journalistic institutions, whether they got to pay buy? The sharing of bewilderment.
But Jane's an a massive emerging topic and critics attention?
They pay attention?
The Jane's Intelligence Review presented media with a bold move.
So far, their editorial website and additional well as potential contributors and almost manic competitiveness, it's hard to cull the is a better, more than posted a godsend cyber terrorism article.
Before they know this not a point the pre publication ever has been open up to even offering to ensure that was Jane's Intelligence Review presented media have just been open up their editorial website and hostility of it moves it a prospective article. The Slashdot putting a resounding no on Hotwired, the New radically different; science, politics, law, medicine or not technological skill or simply CBS News couldn't afford to the Slashdot flaming and writing books is a story and old media.
Re:...because it's commentary, not news. (Score:1)
I realize that. Katz has done a really good job of this in the past, filling out some of these ideas and showing us what effects they can have and the like. And I LIKE reading those articles.
I didn't see any of that here. I think everything in here had been mentioned in the past. It was more of a summary than even commentary. And THAT's what made me state that this article was nearly useless. It's summarizing that which we've already read.
If he wants to make sure we're aware of this idea, then he could have pointed at the previous Slashdot stories, and then added commentary which did expand and interpret them.
---
Um... (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Structure of writing/article moderation (Score:1)
Do we really need to know the timeframe of this twice out of three paragraphs? In topic sentances no less.
Katz mentioned a few weeks ago about something like collabrative filtering. Perhaps there should be a small quicky 15-30 minute moderation before a story goes public. Take the values of those surveys, compare them to profiles of the people surveyed and be a matchmaker for readers that just want to see what should probally intrest them most.
In other words -- A true extention of instant feedback from readers before the (sometimes unknowledgable, sometimes really lame) news goes out.
Re:Peer Review (Score:3)
1. Usually a journal article gets passed on to just two or three reviewers, whilst the slashdot model exposes the material to a much wider breadth of criticism.
2. The journal's reviewers will work on the article for a period of perhaps several months, and alone, whilst the slashdot feedback is conversational and immediate.
3. Reviewers feedback tends to be collected together on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, whilst in the slahsdot model the criticism is in its turn subject to criticism.
I think we will see big changes in the way academic feedback occurs in the next decades. It is already happening in computer science and mathematics: ideas at an early stage are disseminated in academic mailing lists, getting a quite different kind of feedback before being submitted to classical journal review. Also the era of the preprint has already revolutionised many subjects.
Journalism (Score:1)
With what time? (Score:2)
Usefulness depends on the situation (Score:1)
For example, Katz suggests posting stories online for fact checking and feedback of people involved in the topics. That's fine for topics involving verifiable factual issues, or highly technical discussion within a community like
But, as Katz suggests, an article on the Pentagon or defense department would probably NOT see as much benefit. You'll see a much greater attempt to ballot-stuff if they're looking for employees to comment, or trying to get a general sense of what's going on. These type of discussions can only be skewed by allowing a self-selecting group to have a significant amount of input.
Granted, that's not to say this is inherently a bad idea -- after all, our own governmental elections are self-selecting, and we're very used to seeing the results skewed in favor of whatever self-selecting group "gets out the vote", since only 50% of the public (at most) votes in any given election.
But journalism isn't supposed to be a democracy, where whoever votes early and often gets to influence the final outcome of the story. I'd hate to see the next Watergate overlooked because the CREEP managed to get enough people to post misleading comments and "facts" that are unverifiable until the whole story comes out a decade or three later.
I'm also concerened about the potential INCREASE in the number of errors that would be propogated through this method. If it was standard practice to post stories with the expectation that mistakes would be corrected later, we'd have serious trouble trying to establish a clear historical record of facts. Most drafts are lost to history for good reason -- they're wrong, poorly edited, and in general unsuitable for public view. This method would make drafts enter the electronic archives of the world with an alarming frequency, and it would be up to the researcher or reader to determine after the fact if the story was later "updated" with correct information. Remember this is a decentralized system of information, so having it updated on CNN.com doesn't mean the cached copy of the "wrong" version isn't going to wind up somewhere it shouldn't be.
He should take his own advice (Score:1)
Re:A few points... (Score:2)
1. News is intended to inform. It isn't; it's intended to get advertising.
I guess living in a world where media conglomerates have squeezed as much money per eyeball as they can manage, you could have this opinion. You've put the cart before the horse. However "news" is still meant to inform, it's the delivery service that has become tainted, the medium controlled by the media masters. Thus the utitily of the process Katz talks about in his article.
Katz puts his ass on the line with every article, he knows what it is to get flamed. He just happens to believe that flames makes better steel, which is basically the whole idea.
Excuse me...but WHERE'S THE ARTICLE? (Score:1)
mark, at work, without hours to search
Peer Review, with one big difference (Score:3)
Well, sort of. Peer review is exactly that. Review of ones ideas by (presumably) one's peers. Other recognized experts. I don't know 'bout the rest of you, but I've never been asked to peer-review anything. I'm no expert (probably), my expertise goes unrecognized (definitely), or both.
Slashdot and other wide-open interactive media don't depend solely on recognized experts. Anyone who feels like it can rant on and on. Non-experts, experts who haven't been recognized as such, and just plain hotheads with nothing relevant to say can all get an audience.
Some them deserve to be heard. Non-experts frequently have valid concerns that need to be addressed. Even when they don't, forums like this one allow the real experts to correct the mistakes and address the concerns of the misinformed. What peer-reviewed academic journal allows for that? As for the hotheads, they can get moderated into near-invisibility without being deprived of their right to express themselves. What could be better?
What does 'published' mean? (Score:1)
>all possible information before, not after, the
>piece was published.
Wasn't the article "published" the moment it appeared online?
So, Jane's have realised that online documents can be modified (or completely rewritten) more easily than paper ones can. That's great, but it's not really that novel, is it?
Re:A few points... (Score:1)
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that 'news' is some ephemeral entity that exists separately from the media, then I disagree. The medium may not be the message, but it's definitely a part of the message.
If the medium is controlled by the 'media masters' it doesn't matter a damn what research process is used; anything contraversial or possibly offensive will be excised before transmission/publication.
!New (Score:2)
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
That's why he does this! (Score:1)
I wonder if he is writing another book...something compilating everything he has learned from Slashdot and such. If one does happen, I assure you that many of the ideas he presents will be drastically different from what was initially written on
Katz is a good guy, he doesn't deserve to get flamed..he puts his "ass on the line" every single time he writes a feature, and he keeps doing it. Katz recognizes what
Some of you need to realize that
That's why he does this! (Score:1)
I wonder if he is writing another book...something compilating everything he has learned from Slashdot and such. If one does happen, I assure you that many of the ideas he presents will be drastically different from what was initially written on
Katz is a good guy, he doesn't deserve to get flamed..he puts his "ass on the line" every single time he writes a feature, and he keeps doing it. Katz recognizes what
Some of you need to realize that
Commentary vs Authority (Score:2)
For example in the current controversy about genetically modified food, I suspect people would think more about the issues if they were exposed to the inner discussions which the scientists conduct (but don't be surprised at the range of opinions!). Unfortunately, as Carl Sagan pointed out in his book, The Demon Haunted World, this requires a fair amount of basic scientific literacy just to understand the topic, much less the argot of that expertise. If your interests in technology stops at the microwave and TV remote, then is it surprising that Atlantis and UFOs are more popular topics than biodiversity or social rationalisation?
Hopefully the Internet will readdress some of the imbalance, allow the public greater access to the knowledge and expertise tied up in the great libraries and minds of people working in the field. Maybe, just maybe, in a few decades if you're not able to add value to a discussion, then news outlets will be forced to reinvent themselves. Specialist journals such as Jane will probably survive, but the general audience is likely to fragment and seek the direct opinions of football stars or technology experts (until they get so sick of the attention they invent AI secretaries
Oh well, so you too can become an authority on an obscure speciality and get your 15 minutes of fame
LL
!New (Score:1)
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
!New (Score:1)
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
The Katz Factor (Score:1)
He obviously has missed the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)factor.
Brunner was here first (Score:1)
Hmm, time to dive back into my copy and see what else he mapped out that might be nearby.
The future of information (Score:1)
A world in which information is truely free... kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, no?
Re:With what time? (Score:1)
Lawyers working for the public good? Hahahahaha. Good one.
But to a certain extent you're missing the point. This is done for free by
Open Source Journalism isn't a panacea; it'll never amount to more than a tiny percentage. What it is is another tool, along with libraries, the web and personal sources, that can be used in research.
Anyone who relies on
Publishing and Publishing Online (Score:2)
The internet has encouraged a split in publishing (surely there before the internet, but not common). I'll call it "Raw Publishing" and "Editorial Publishing". Editorial publishing is when an article/story/book/whatever has been through all of its research, drafts, editors, etc. before being viewed by the reader. This is what most paper publications do, some online mags (eg. Salon) and what Cringely was saying Jane's should have done.
Then there's raw publishing. It's still publishing, since you are producing content for strangers to read, but both the publisher and the reader know full well it hasn't gone through all the mechanics of exhaustive fact checking and polishing that editorial publications do. They need some research and polish, to avoid looking like a moron, but not to the same degree as editorial publications.
This is what Jane's did here; it is what many online magazines do, such as
People hold the editorial publications to a higher standard than raw ones, for obvious reasons. Jane's readers hold them to a particularly high standard. By publishing raw, and collecting feedback, Jane's was able to boost the quality of an article in its editorial publication in a very short amount of time. Other publications could learn a powerful lesson from this.
----
expert opinions in journalism (Score:1)
MHF
Re:Peer Review (Score:1)
mathematics: ideas at an early stage are disseminated in academic mailing lists, getting a quite different kind of feedback before being
submitted to classical journal review
Nope. There is one problem with the academic community. As long as you let the mediocracy in you can no longer get rid of it. Hence, check the policies of many mathematical and other scientific journals. Quite a lot of them explicitly restrict any prior publishing on mailing lists, web, discussion forums, etc. This is not amazing because when mediocracy has already prevailed there is no place for healthy critisism.
I am not saying that the open reviews shall not prevail, I am just saying that your time estimate is rather over optimistic. Some "academic" individuals with rather die instead of allowing an open review. So until they (and possibly one or two generations of the successors they have installed) go on a pension open reviews as a wide practice in the scientific communnity do not stand a chance.
Too general and no info (Score:1)
The tech presented was blah and not well researched nor well presented. For a prof mag like Jane's you should expect better research and writeing
The most elite hackers on the Internet? (Score:1)
C'mon, Jon. Everyone knows that the really 'l33t haX0r d00dz are too busy hacking into DOD computers using tools that look like a development build of Quake 3, while simultaneously checking their IV drip of Jolt from their darkened, pizza-stained couches, to take the time to surf. Unless one of their friends send them a killer pr0n link. Huh-huh huh. pr0n.
First post? really some interesting stuff... (Score:1)
Bottom line, make sure the facts are right
The way is should be (Score:2)
After all, what an unprecedented, radical concept it is to actually research the subject. Such guts and brevor, to verify the sanity of facts with a pool of expertise, rather than basing one's world-view on the opinion of a bias 'expert' interested in putting one's own spin on an issue. Nothin ZD about this.
As with anything statistical, the truth is in large numbers. And for things geek, there's fewer places geeks are found in number than on
As always, the media is finally getting a firm grip on reality. Better late than never.
Or an I hoping for too much, and only a small segment of the journalistic dimention has the insight into the fact that they are not themselves experts on their latest spew. Kudos to Jane's in either case. Their respect for their work shows.
Yes, but... (Score:1)
Perhaps Katz's insight is really that skills required of journalists are changing. What constitutes a well-researched and informative story remains relatively constant.
In this sense, journalism is a little like democracy as opposed to government by direct participation. Readers vote for journalists by buying (or clicking on) their output, and among their other duties, journalists function as proxies for their audiences.
Reading
-Standfast.
Open Analysis (Score:4)
There've been a number of times recently when Slashdot articles have been critical of traditional information sources. The one that stands out is The Gartner Group's analysis of Linux.
These Analysts are listened to by a lot of the Industry. These guys are not audited for accuracy, nor do they have to demonstrate credentials, but they can be tremendously influential. Sometimes, it seems that analysts like Gartner and Giga create the future rather than just predict based on trends.
The situation could be better. It seems to me that moderated up comments on Slashdot are at least as good as the insight of the Analysts, and are often much better.
By and large, CIOs are not going to read Slashdot, although perhaps they should. Would it be possible to have a new Slashdot section called "Industry Analysis" (or something). Articles could be posted here which would pose specific Industry Trend types of questions/issues for review and analysis. There could also be a standard review Article posted every month/quarter/year to capture analysis for a recurring report on the upcoming state of the Industry. These "Industry Analysis" articles could become a trusted source for Industry News and Trends.
It might be a good idea to have an Editorial Board for this that would take the "Industry Analysis" articles and collect them just into the gems (highly moderated comments). The Editorial Board might exercise some discretion on Comments, editing them for brevity, possibly consolidating similar Comments into single sub-sections of the report.
In each case, the collated sub-sections would have by-lines that give information about the authors. This would be an important function of the Editorial Board. They would gather information about the authors for the final edited version of the reports. This information would be important to identify potential biases of the authors. We don't want some guy working for HP playing up the fact that the next release of HP-UX with UltraECommerce+ will be a world beater, without a by-line that makes it clear that the author might be partisan. I wouldn't exclude articles where bias is a factor. After all, the articles still have to pass through moderation. The best marketing information provides you with a lot of data to work from and it could be included, it just has to be completely clear as to the bias of the author. I would allow Anonymous Coward by-lines or even by-lines by authors who don't want to give information about themselves, but the by-line would state the fact that the author prefers not to disclose information about themselves.
Perhaps the final product would go through a final Slashdot Community review so as to be a check on the Editorial Board and to allow for the Community to point out potential biases that may have been missed by the editors but should be noted.
Maybe the Editorial Board is unnecessary, I don't know. Without some editing, I doubt it would ever be taken seriously in the industry. I would like to think that this could be taken seriously and help to create the future the way the Gartner's and Giga's create the future with their predictions.
These final reports could stand alone as Web-Based documents. An Industry Analysis that is for and by the geek community.
Hey, the Slashdot Community is increasingly being used for Industry Analysis anyway. There are a lot of Industy Press stories that say "the geeks of on Slashdot are saying...". We might as well publish our own industry analysis that is free of outside editing.
This whole process could be called Open Analysis, or think up another name...
I could even see Slashdot getting paid to address specific issues with the Open Analysis process. Maybe Slashdot could distribute some of this to the contributors (as Jane's was going to do), but I'm not opposed to Slashdot benefitting from this. What's good for Slashdot is good for the Slashdot Community.
Media Laziness (Score:1)
I have to wonder whether the root of the problem is simply laziness. One could argue that the media has become an intensely competetive environment where more and more publications (and shows) are fighting for a fixed number of eyeballs. As a result, journalists have to scramble to produce their pieces as quickly as possible. One could also argue that the world is becoming increasingly complex and that those same journalists just can't keep up.
I would argue that a culture of laziness has instead grown within the media industry. In that light, the former arguments are simply obstacles to be surmounted like any other. Tight deadlines are no excuse for shoddy or inaccurate reporting. Likewise the complexity of the issues involved are no excuse for a lack of any research. There are experts in all fields, experts that can be contacted to clarify and comment on the actual issues.
Journalists are not omniscient, nor are they infinitely quick at the keyboard. Their job is not to be either. Instead, their job is to gather information from others in the know and to present a balanced, factually based account of the matter at hand.
So, will the laziness ever end?
Journalists need HELP! This helps. (Score:2)
This struck me as hilarious, and embarrassing. Beechnut makes baby food; Beechcraft once built light airplanes, but they never built Aerostars AFAIK. The Aerostar design was then owned by... Piper!
After listening to this for a while, I finally phoned the radio station and told them that the Aerostar had been most recently built by Piper. They corrected their copy in the very next hour's coverage. So I made a small difference in the quality of news coverage that day, and perhaps kept some people from getting the impression that baby food was the latest hazard to air travel.
The Jane's episode is the next level, getting the facts right before going to press. We have all seen just how bad journalism can get, when writers try to inform the public on subjects they understand only too poorly themselves. It's not a moment too soon.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Pow! One in the kisser for traditional media (Score:1)
The only problem I can foresee (other than the writer not checking his new sources of info) is the issue of 'scooping'. If a periodical goes through this process, there is a chance that another entity could scoop their story, since it is in essence 'Open-Sourced'. And since most published media is driven by profit, this is definitely an issue.
It's a One off (Score:1)
Two-way journalism (Score:1)
Print media has, for centurys, treated the public not as customers buying information, but rather as morons to be preached to and lead to some version of "truth" previously seen only by the reporter, editor, and publisher.
The one-way channel of print media (and, to a certain extent, radio/tv) allows the traditional reporter to issue almost any outrageous statement as fact without fear of being shouted down in derision.
The new media, using the two-way communication demonstrated by Jane's will be 1) instantly appreciated by the public and 2) instantly deprecated by their traditional counterparts.
I, personally, am tired of having "talking heads" lie to me.
Peer Review (Score:1)
Janes is Usualy Right for a Reason (Score:1)
Janes' reputation is strong because they have always welcomed feedback from their communities.
Katz Bash
It isn't anything new, although it doesn't surprise me that Katz thinks he discovered it. Most mainstream media types make that mistake about any story they write.
Agrees with my experience (Score:1)
Bravo, Jon! Well-written and on target.
My (very) limited experience agrees with this. I just got my first on-line publication this week (warning: shameless self-promotion!) at linuxplanet.com [linuxplanet.com], and already I've received some very high-quality constructive criticism (thanks, Ben!) which would have greatly improved the article if I had been able to incorporate it first.
My college writing teacher always insisted that the best way to improve a piece of writing was (a) thorough, ruthless review followed by (b) several revisions. This was before the web had caught on. The internet scales these possibilites for review on a scale impractical just a few years ago.
Saw it coming.. (Score:2)
I think it'd be interesting to have a 'Slashdot Proofs' section, where documents could be uploaded for all the world to tear apart. This would be very, VERy interesting... (Spec if Katz prepublished some of his papers, for all the world to tear to shreds)
Partial Inapplicability to Other Fields (Score:1)
Jon Katz extracts a number of observations and theories from Jane's involvement with Slashdot over the last two weeks, but misses a few key points.
First of all, authors using reader response in anticipation of publication is nothing new. From biographers soliciting interviews in the New York Times Book Review to focus group based editing to the basic research that every article or book begins with, information flows into an article from multiple, often public sources. The case of Jane's Intelligence Review soliciting analysis from /. members can be seen as an opening of the editing process of journalism to the general public, but it can also be seen as the action of an editor searching for expert opinions, as editors and authors have always done. Jane's didn't ask AOL teen chat rooms what they thought of the article(though the responses would be worthy of an article unto themselves): they came to a recognizable and engagable concentration of computer experts. This bears little difference from an author preparing to write about international relations to send her manuscript to experts in the field, hoping for intelligent and constructive comments.
And yet posting an article to Slashdot is a different sort of type of solicitation for information than making distinct, personal contact with experts in the field. Thousands read the solicitation; hundreds respond. Of the hundreds of comments, a few dozen are useful, from the "general public"(ie, are not individually solicited) and in the public domain(if I understand the rules governing Slashdot properly). The fact that expert people give their expert advice gratis I believe occurs only because those experts are by and large firm believers in open source, be it open source code or open source journalism. Few other fields have such a widespread belief in open standards and free flow of information, particularly the business and political spheres. In fact, the farther you move from pure science towards pure politics, the more valuable each actor believes his opinion to be.
While the community on Slashdot may be enthusiastic to help improve Jane's article on computer security for the mere value of having a more accurate article than a less accurate article, mainstream publications will have difficulty transfering such enthusiasm to other fields. Journalists in politics or business will still have access to deep throats and other individually solicited expert opinions, but the Slashdot mentality does not fly as high inside the Beltway or on Wall Street, where carefully guarded information is power or money, than in the Valley or in Austin where the spirit of competition is supplanted by the spirit of excellence.
Slashdot model great for tech, but that's about it (Score:2)
Darn tootin'!
Before I ever discovered Slashdot, I remember I had a timed essay in my Journalism 110 class about how new media will change traditional news values. The Internet won't change news values, I replied, it will destroy them. They will be replaced by reader values. Slashdot is a perfect example of readers being able to customize and interact with their news.
Unfortunitly, there's no way in heck that the Slashdot model will be the across-the-board solution to the degrading worth of today's journalism. First of all, there's the signal to noise ratio. I, personally, can't stomach those man-on-the-street interviews that TV news tries to pull off whenever something Lewinsky-sized heads their way. Open up the media to the public at large and you'll get 98% fluff.
Second of all, allowing a select group to preview a story like Jane's did is a violation of my personal ethics. This isn't the case for all journalists, but I was made cynical back in my high school days when our advisor allowed the student body president, who had been caught breaking and entering the school, to read and comment on a story concerning him.
Imagine if some starry eyed Online Journalist decided to run all his stories past a panel of experts before printing them. What if his story was about congress? Would he let all those dogs tear away at his story before the public was allowed viewing? Prior review is a nasty, nasty thing, and never again will I willfully give up any of my first amendment rights.
Besides, what's the difference between publishing a flawed story on Slashdot and publishing a flawed story in Jane's? You're still open to libel suits if you make false claims in your Slashdot post and say "dudes, I dunno if this is right or not, what do you think?"
So, yes, Slashdot is a great model for journalists to consider, but it is not the perfect model by any means. Slashdot is a haven for unobjective journalism. Do you think the New York Times could get away with the (sometimes) unsupported Microsoft bashing that we get away with? =)
Collective authorship (Score:2)
--
Did you get labeled today ? (Score:1)
improved information model?? (Score:2)
Editorial Models (Score:2)
Although Katz's criticism of the publishing world being somewhat closed-doored and unreceptive to outside opinions when it comes to publishing stories is correct, the Jane's Intelligence Review example is not a viable model for most journalistic reporting. Katz quickly states (somewhere in the last third of his article) that some stories - fast-breaking or announcement - would have difficulty integrating this type of approach into its methods of writing articles, without acknowledging that most journalistic writing out there fits these two descriptions.
Very few articles (notably review pieces occasionally seen buried in the back of trade publications or newspapers) have both the time and a forum of knowledgable people who can propose critical, unbiased statements about what the author is addressing. In this case - a review of potential 21st Century Information Models - the Internet is a natural place to ask for information. The article is timely (being almost the 21st century) but can lag by a few days, weeks, months as the subject matter is siphoned and fashioned into a good article.
How can a journalist use this for broader topics? How about the progression of an occupied Kosovo, US Foreign Policy, or the ramifications of reaching 6 billion people in 1999? How objective can the average internet user (or even the savvy ones who are on /.) profess to understand the convoluted nature of gene splicing or cloning? The internet and a general chat community can not provide the critical information such an article would need.
I also have to take issue with one of Katz's premises in saying this type of journalism is indeed generally viable. "The Web is a godsend for reporters and publications that value truth and reason over dogma and control," doesn't take into account that the journalistic community at least usually understands the difference between fact and opinion (though they don't always acknowledge it). It also doesn't take into accound biases of online communities. Taking /. for this example, asking users here to help outline the merits of deploying a Microsoft solution in an enterprize or, more realistically, to help assess the critical weaknesses of the Linux platform would provide a reporter with the very difficult task of separating wheat from chaff. While every hundreth comment might not be "Linux is invulnerable" or "The anti-MS revolution keeps gaining steam", a reporter saves time and headaches asking knowledgable, reliable resources for their assessments.
In the case of the Jane article, it sounded like this is exactly what they did. Consult some experts and create an on-line edition and request reviews before putting it to ink. In this case, the editor felt that the reality of the subject was so far removed from the text of the article that it called for a rewrite. Well, guess what? This is called a peer review and is done by most academic publications. Source checking is an important part of journalism, and all but the worst rag publications check most sources and facts before they put it to print or make it clear that the posted/printed article is an opinion. Now, because this usually doesn't mean writing "OPINION" as a nice watermark behind the text, it means that the reader must be critical about what they write. In a peer review for information technology, the internet and /. are appropriate peers. For hardcore science, humanities, political or social events this (meaning both /. and as of yet the internet in general) is not the appropriate venue for soliciting informed opinions.
Watermarked "OPINION" for your protection
This is a journal not a new publishing method (Score:1)
In journal publishing you have a series of referees to check out the quality of the work submitted. When you are dealing with a completely new field, such as cyberterrorism, it is exceedingly hard to find experts in such fields, or know whether they are pulling the wool over your eyes.
Hence I don't think its a completely new model, but more likely a public version of a journal process. Although I was pleased (like the Editor) of the quality of the responses.
You can also see a similar process on the Los Alamos eprint server (xxx.lanl.gov), except that comments are posted directly to the author.
Paul Guinnessy
Editor, PhysicsWeb
Academic model (Score:1)
The downside of this is that the review process takes quite awhile. Many months. Sometimes many many months. (It is acceptible, however, to reference not yet published documents in your own papers. Just put it in your references as "Manuscript" instead of giving a publication date, and be ready to correct things if the manuscript gets altered.)
By the way, this fits with descriptions I have seen comparing open-source programming to the academic model -- Katz's "open source journalism" resembles the academic model as well.
n.b.: I am not a professor, just a grad student (aka "Professor-in-Training", aka "Cheap Labor"). But I have been a research assistant to a professor, so I have an idea on how these things are done.
"Slashdot Interval?" Kind of pretentious... (Score:1)
Peer review comes to main-stream journalism... (Score:2)
The process that you labeled the "Slashdot Interval" is also known as peer-review. It is defines the process of publishing articles in almost all (if not all) scientific journals.
The interesting problem is: how do we bring the rigor of peer review to main-stream journalism? (BTW, Slashdot is an example of that process in action.)
latham
Some additional factors (Score:1)
This means each of these companies is looking for some new angle that they can impress their customers with. Afterall, they are just repackaging public information. They have no spies, and only rarely get tips from people in the know. It is unsurprising that Jane's might use a forum like
What they need to watch out for is that the information on
Re:A few points... (Score:1)
Not always to get advertising - sometimes the aim is still to sell copies at a profit. Most newspapers will combine the two, that's why we measure both 'sales' and 'readership'. And not all newspapers are complete trash - there is a finely graduated scale. I find the Financial Times [ft.com] to be pretty well focussed on well-informed articles, although I couldn't tell you whether this is to get more eyeballs for advertisements, or to shift more expensive copies. TV news is, in general, worse than newspapers, but it's not uniformly dreadful (the BBC is usually tolerable).
principle good, reality will be harder (Score:1)
I'm glad Jane's editor found useful comments from the community to forge a new article. However, I wonder if, on a local news basis, readers, and much less editors/reporters will take to a similar model. I agree journalism needs to be "outside" more than it is. But I find myself, as a Journalism degree holder, somewhat wary. Why? I work on the web. I know the benefits of the Slashdot model. Of course, I've also seen the "d00d f15s7 p057!'s." I can almost guarantee the "point here-point there, bull in between" viewpoint of the Slashdot model will be hard to overcome in American newsrooms.
It seems a natural tendency with human nature, to stay with the comfortable. For this to work, newspapers now edging towards the web, some embracing it more than others, need to be willing to embrace a more chilling jump. That is, opening the process. From the current vantage point, it can (not always) appear to be a chasm of radical opinions. But then, isn't politics and political coverage that way now?
Perhaps what we as journalists need to realize is as Katz says, the model holds great promise. The key is an ability to filter the tuna from the chum. Here, media in general will have to move beyond Rolodex journalism. That is, when Mr. X of "Foo's for IPv6" says IPv6 is the only rational way of living, call Ms. Y of "Bars for IPv4 or shove that 10baseT up your PCI" for "the other side."
In other words, embrace "community journalism" as illustrated by James Fallows in Breaking the News. A newspaper still employs reporters, but steers their stories based on instant feedback as a story is worked on.
Stories reach a certain point editorially (libel, slander issues are cleared, statements of fact checked and moderated) before posting to a site. Then, feedback takes over. At this point the model becomes a bit less like Slashdot. I doubt papers will allow for AC posting, instead insisting that everyone offering comment register and be willing to "own" their comments by being responsible for them. Basically, if a user posts "That's crap and Mr. Y of Foo is a raging segfault!" the paper has less liability for keeping the comment, which the user posted to a registered forum.
Of course, moderators in the Slashdot sense do their work. What happens next is perhaps the largest adjustment to be made, a paper revises its story of record on site. In print, a "newspaper" revises online stories, and digests them with the highest moderated feedback. Tease the URLs back to the original content since the story is still alive, so to speak. A story never becomes "final" as long as it gains comments, feeds new stories and remains moderated.
Sounds easy right? Well it's not. Remember journalists are people too, with about the same percentage of early adopters, followers, late adopters. It may look easy to Slashdot readers, since we're all the early adopters in this new model.
The new model, if it is going to work, needs to expand beyond the technically oriented. Early adopters we may be, but representative of the majority we are not. We need to convince the less technically oriented. We need non-technical examples of how the Slashdot model can work. More importantly, media will need patience. The change will come, but after a leader has made the mistakes and corrected them and succeeded by *industry* measure. In other words, award winning, Pulitzer quality work needs to happen with the new model.
Other important questions need to be answered, too. Is the model computer only and does it favor high speed internet access? What of the computer and bandwidth poor (not necessarily financially), how is their voice included in this bazaar model? How free should a media company be to pursue stories its consumers aren't interested in? Should a media company still pursue stories its gotten favorable response from? How does the lunatic fringe participate or do they at all? Would Dateline NBC get any better, really? These questions are going to be asked at any paper where the idea even remotely comes up, if it isn't instantly shouted down.
The Wired cover goes to the media company, or garage startup smart enough to have a feet in the fast adopter camp yet know where traditional journalism is coming from, and show the current players how to do it differently and better. The future of journalism is waiting on more good examples.
Re:Excuse me...but WHERE'S THE ARTICLE? (Score:1)
...phil
Re:The future of information (Score:2)
It's even possible we'll understand older ideas like capitalism better under the new light shed. Given open information about products, consumer peer review will select the best products and companies without excessive top-down control. Sound a little familiar?
I think we've seen enough to know it's longer lasting than a hula-hoop. Whether it has consequences for decades afterwards like the civil rights movement remains to be seen.
It could be like the anti-War movement too, a single issue horse. No Microsoft, no impetus for open source. I doubt that personally, free software preceded Microsoft's monopoly by quite a piece. It has too much intrinsic value to be dismissed as purely a reaction against something.
Re:Brunner was here first (Score:2)
I think /.ing is similar but not quite the same. But the World vs. Kasparov match, now, that seems like an almost perfect match.
Consultation or control? (Score:2)
It's all very well for authors and editors to consult with a large body of experts using the internet, but that's different from handing the editorial function over to a court of public opinion. For instance, if a magazine or newspaper published its plans for upcoming issues and articles, they could be subjec to lobbying by interest groups in favour of or against the planned topics. In other words, opening up publishing too much risks the loss of political autonomy.
Schemes like this tend to assume a future in which everything's working as smoothly as it does today; but let's just say the technology to do this had existed in, say Germany in the 1930's. If you were a publisher planning to do an article against anti-semitism, do you think you would get very far if your whole process was "open"?
To put it another way, do we want the publishers of the world to have their content monitored exclusively by the tiny percentage of relatively well-off people who use computers? Where's the political checks and balances if it is this particular economic group with its particular prejudices and agendas that serves as the filter for the mass-media?
The ability of authors, editors, and publishers to operate out of the public eye is a key guarantor of their ability to exercise free speech.
This is not to say that Jane's hasn't stumbled on to something useful; but it's useful in a limited context, not as a complete model for the future of publishing.
Know Your Source (Score:1)
I don't think that Mr. Katz's article is really that relevant for the simple reason that when the mainstream media has an interest to do so, they consult "experts" who can support a preferred point of view. I'm not being cynical - it's the way it works. They then take the expert opinions and boil it down to the simplest atom of digestible data so that their target consumers can swallow the pap they're being fed.
Let's not kid ourselves. If we want to know what's really going on in the technological world we don't consult the newspapers for details.
dubious journalism (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot model great for tech, but that's about (Score:3)
But assuming slashdot-like sites covering diverse subjects were in existence, it might be valuable for a fairly large class of stories. Don't think of it as publishing exactly, but discussion of a first draft outline -- more likely if this had been planned from the start. New ideas will be proposed, misconceptions punctured, hoaxes exposed, logic tightened, all to the good if the reporter is open to criticism and suggestions. The forum provides data, the reporter provides information in the story.
The data on the wire services are shared pretty well, so it's not inconceivable that this kind of data could be too (it's posted publically, so it kinda has to be.) Product will still be differentiated by the sources that only the reporter has access to, and their insight and writing ability.
Prior review isn't really censorship here because there is no threat to prevent Jane's from publishing whatever they like, including the original story (which they did.) Newspapers usually call politicians before breaking a negative story on them, right? It's not because they won't print the story if the politician doesn't like it, they want more data, and to ensure they're not making a mistake. Prior review is only a problem if you can't ignore it when you choose to.
Re:Peer Review (Score:1)
Or "meritocracy"? I agree that after the judgment of an article by experts outside your academic journal, there will be very few things that the experts inside your journal will be able to say to appear witty. They are the old guard, accustomed to weekly (or even quarterly) posts and counterposts for editing's sake. My 60+ year old Fluid Dynamics professor is one of the most brilliant minds in the field, and makes scads of money because our school pays him to stay on their staff and publish articles with their name. He has the system beat; why would he give his opinion for free...unless he is more passionate about the field of Fluid Dynamics than he is about his bank account?
If you're coining the phrase "mediocracy," do you really want it to mean "rule by the mediocre"? That implies a lack of progress and a "sinking" to the average standard--I contend that it does exist, but that it exists in the journals, and not in the new media.
cheers,
jurph
Re:Peer Review (Score:1)
The importance of journals is that they, together with book publications, represent the `long-term memory' of the academic system. But journals do not represent the only form of peer review, and the typical journal article has already undergone a process of evolution under criticism by the time it is submitted. The advantage of open mailing lists over thse already existing processes is that they represent a breadth of opinion that none of the other formats have, combatting the incestuousness of much academic clique-building. The foundations of mathematics [psu.edu] mailing list is the kind of thing I have in mind.
Again, of course, you are right about academics not choosing to adapt. The price of this, as it has always been, is irrelevance.
Re:!New (Score:1)
Re: Katz Bash (Score:2)
media types make that mistake about any story they write.
But why shouldn't Katz, or any other "media type", think they discovered something. They did. The mistake is assuming they discovered it FIRST.
And given the rush to publish, once they find out something new they often don't have time to discover the alternate literature where the "new" thing is really old news.
Further, if it's something that isn't common knowlege in their particular literature, importing it is still a useful and valuable act of reportage.
Why this may not become more general (Score:2)
Exposing the story to public criticism also exposes it to other reporters. The less scrupulous may then take advantage of it, quickly develop a source, and do their own story without either checking it or crediting the consientious reporter who really broke the story.
Janes has an advantage of being nearly a monopoly on their particular field of reportage. So they have less to risk.
Ack! That's frightening (Score:2)
Instead, this Katz travesty requires a moment of actual reading to discover that its incoherency and sloppiness is not Katz's usual sort, but far worse and more random. That's kind of scary
What is Katz, really? This travesty and the disturbing realisation that it shares more with the original source than one would expect raises some unusual questions. Katz _is_ a living human being, unless Rob Malda is playing some really, really weird mind game with us- so what is happening with these very Markov-like writing habits? Is this a suggestion that the human thought processes draw more from Markov chaining than we'd like to admit- and that clarity and coherency are derived from a sort of 'overseer' level in the brain that looks at the entire work as a whole, and censors redundancies and incompleted thoughts- a 'censor' level that in Jon Katz is not working effectively?
"The Scoop" (Score:2)
One thing that Katz does not address is that sometimes getting the information out quickly is more important than getting the information precisely right or properly moderated. That, to my mind, has had a huge influence in creating the journalist culture he's complaining about. With so much (presumably sales numbers and so forth) riding on the ability of a story to be novel and sensational, as opposed to precisely accurate, it's no wonder that journalists will tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
There are times, however, where this approach is perfectly justifiable. I want to know about health issues, flawed or dangerous technology that I might be dealing with, and so forth as soon as possible. If a company is producing a dangerous product, it is much more valuable to me that their product line be painted with a broad brush and either recalled or dealt with quickly than it is for me to hear a few days later that the ABS in my car fails one time in a thousand or that mixing ChemCo. Houshold Products A and B will give me a hideous illness.
As well, the idea of "investigative reporting" is probably (I've got zero experience here) also something that you can't do by committee, especially if there are powerful people involved. I can't imagine how the discovery of Nixon's abuse of power would have turned out if Nixon himself had got wind it a week in advance, and brought presidential influence to bear on the journalists and the publication itself.
Peer review is nowhere near a new idea. It may be a novelty in the context of modern journalism, but it is simply not a tool that you can use all of the time. I agree that there is a lot of good to the idea, but the idea just isn't appropriate for urgent situations or for those that demand some degree of caution or secrecy before release, for fear of tainting the product.
The challenge will be in deciding which is which. Look for a book called "Dead Secret", for an interesting bit of apropos fiction.
--
Fatal flaw (Score:3)
In fact, the nature of Slashdot is such that it is almost impossible for certain notions, such as unionization, to get reviewed with clarity, because the Slashdot population has self-selected to strongly favor libertarian beliefs, and beyond that to outright Randite views. This slant even manages to strongly color more computer-software-oriented socialist ideas, such as freedom of software being an end in itself and not solely a tool used to maximize profit. As a result, one is almost obligated to say 'OF COURSE open source is about maximizing efficiency and profit and anything else is icing on the cake', and it's equally obligatory for _somebody_ to slam the GPL's more social implications when that is brought into the discussion, as if to say, "You can talk all you want but you HAVE TO also pay credence to the TRUTH!".
All this merely underlines the point that Slashdot is its own special interest group, with no particular claim on the truth. Considered as a whole, Slashdot may have formidable resources to peer review some things. It may be clueless about other things, or even actively wrong and misguided about still other things, even things that seem to concern it deeply.
My picture of the average Slashdot viewpoint (not reader, just viewpoint) is of a viewpoint deeply educated in computer technology, naive in sociology, rather well-off and insulated from the harsher edge of modern society, similarly naive in politics and economics, with a strikingly optimistic viewpoint and lots of energy to bring great things to the world, but extremely willing to write off injustices and abuses as acceptable provided the abuser is acting in their own self interest, which is seen as so paramount that it is not ever to be questioned. As a result, the vision of the average Slashdot viewpoint (not reader, viewpoint) is very sharp but very narrow, prone to fixate on small details and fail to acknowledge there is a big picture- capable of spying a dim possibility on the horizon, _pursuing_ it and then actually _reaching_ that possibility where most people would never ever have got that far- and then looking around in complete surprise at the surroundings, having never given a thought to what else was there.
Thoughts?
Two issues (Score:2)
I see two potentially serious problems with this (in addition to the obvious problem with not waiting to release "scoops"):
(1) In no time at all, there would be an unacceptably low ratio of qualified reviewers to material to be reviewed. (For example, Slashdot provides a large and self-moderating community, but could even we review every ZD story for accuracy?)
(2) Unless posted in some secure area, publishing drafts is still publishing, and could raise additional probability of slander lawsuits. (One would presumably publish early drafts, simultaneously with the usual internal review that checks for this kind of liability.)
Re:Who turned on the Katz story generator? (Score:1)
Fab.
DADADODO came on to me then tried to kill me! (Score:1)
Re:Peer Review (Score:1)
Constrast this to the larger scale operating here. First of all, the group of direct commenters is much larger. This group provides a set of influences, which you can think of as a function operating on the original statement. The moderation then applies a second function -- operating on the first function. This second-order function is what makes the group consensus process much more powerful than a single level of peer review. It is also what allows the system to scale up to massive levels.
It is true that this system can be abused. Collective biases certainly do appear! Misinformation can be propagated. But, as a whole, this system is more resilient to the effects of single individuals than the formal peer review system.
Excellent Idea, but beware of bias. (Score:1)
One other thing to consider is that many of the people making decisions about IT purchases and procedures for companies (I think this is who you were targeting) are probably more comfortable with a hardcopy magazine than just looking at a website. Maybe the 'output' of the Open Analysis could be sold to print magazines, as you mention. Maybe the 'output' could become a magazine in it's own right.
Alternative forms of media (Score:1)
Re: Katz Bash (Score:1)
Because it is indicative of the poor research that generaly goes into technology reporting, and assuming it is worth reporting at all. It is particularly pretentious to call it a revolutionary thing to do. Janes' attitude about review is nothing new, and hardly worth reporting on. They are a fine publication with a stellar reputation and a specific set of readers. They aren't a "mainstream media" publication, so any comparison of Janes to the Whereville Times is realy an Apples vs. Airplanes comparison.
A little research on Katz's part would have discovered that his story realy wasn't.
Further, if it's something that isn't common knowlege in their particular literature, importing it is still a useful and valuable act of reportage.
Well, I try to learn something new every day. If I tried to spin everything I learned as a revolutionary paragdim shifting bit of knowledge, and take credit for it, people would rightly think I'm cracked.
Bias or critical analysis? (Score:2)
I could give a very even-handed and thoroughly professional assessment of the pros and cons of Solaris, Linux and Windows in the context of my company's type of application, sticking to facts and without emotive colouring, full of figures and with tight traceability between requirements, performance and conclusions, but how would you judge it for bias? It would be utterly critical of Windows in almost all areas that are relevant to my work (which is *not* office applications), so much so that I expect it would take a very unusual kind of Microsoft devotee to accept my analysis as being unbiased despite all my efforts.
I think you may be asking for the Holy Grail. When analysis condemns something so strongly, it's quite impossible to call for lack of bias, because bias will always be perceived by the side affected, regardless of safeguards.
Of course, you could avoid the accusation by accepting only luke-warm, greyish opinion, but where would that get you? I'm afraid this is not as simple an issue as it might at first appear.
Getting Paid (Score:1)
Slashdot, for example, sees all its readers as potential contributors and critics, radically broadening its corps of information suppliers.
Yup. And I, for one, like it just fine that way. But there are those who (perish the thought!) want to be paid for their ideas and insights, their contributions and criticisms. Even if they're really just opinions, albeit well thought-out and carefully worded ones.
One reason the (boo! hiss!) "traditional media" have been so slow to take advantage of the freedom and interactivity that the internet offers, is that so much of the stuff on the 'net is free. Journalists and writers - probably even Katz himself - are accustomed to getting paid for writing stuff, while online rant-meisters happily expound for free. It's a sobering thought, that someone might be doing your job - that job that pays your bills - better than you and cheaper too. For free, even.
Programmers have been aware of this for a rather long time now. Some of the best software out there is free. And it has not meant the end of the world for well-paid programmers. Journalists might come to realize the same thing can happen to them. Free journalism does not mean that journalists will all go begging. Only the bad ones!
JordanH wrote:
Maybe the Editorial Board is unnecessary, I don't know. Without some editing, I doubt it [Slashdot] would ever be taken seriously in the industry.
Don't we already have an editorial board? I thought they were called moderators.
Perhaps the final product would go through a final Slashdot Community review so as to be a check on the Editorial Board...
That's what meta-moderators are for, right?
Whether Slashdot is taken seriously in "the Industry" will depend largely on whether the ideas and opinions presented on Slashdot are well thought-out and relevant. Not on whether there's an editorial board or peer review.
That's my Humble Opinion, and I'm not being paid for it.
Re:Pop newspapers are not science journals (Score:1)
And that's a bad thing?
They're not interested in truth, they become journalists to change and improve the world.
Why not have it both ways? Seems to me the ideal journalist (the ideal anything, for that matter) is interested in the truth and in changing and improving the world.
Re:A few points... (Score:1)
Lots of standard procedures started out as bold moves. The bold moves that worked became SOP's.
Traditional media were a one-to-many phenomenon. One (or a few) individuals with power and resources preached (their) gospel to the multitudes. Gutenberg's invention democratized the procedure a bit, but it was still rather expensive for Joe Average to publish his opinions far and wide. Soapbox speechifying and BBS ranting took the democratization even farther, but the small audiences they reached kept them below the radar of the bigger media outlets. The internet is (except in the Third World) as democratic as the soapbox, and too big to ignore. The big media outlets have to make some bold moves, or they're going to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Tyranny of the Majority (Score:2)
Slashdot is not monolithic - why should it speak with one voice? We're a diverse bunch, and I really doubt that any one document could be agreed upon by the entire Slashdot readership. Unless maybe it were a self-referential bit of fluff like "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all Slashdot readers read Slashdot." Even then, there's probably a few troublemakers who'd dissent. "No! I never read Slashdot!"
I don't want the majority of Slashdot readers, or posters, to collectively author a document on behalf of all Slashdotters. Even if they had really high karma/moderation totals. Because I'm a Slashdotter, and I might disagree! And even if I agreed, there's the principle of the thing. What about the poor Anonymous Coward whose views are not represented in the Slashdot Constitution because the majority voted him/her down?
Re:Who Owns /. Content? ---- La-ha-a-hame (Score:1)
I would offer one caveat however. There's a saying that if Rome had sent all its best men to war, the Empire would have crumbled sooner. I would suggest (as much I cannot believe I'm saying this) watching television then responding as you might on
The fact is the media has found an audience of morons lower than them and these morons are not going away. We need to claim that territory as well as guard the Net.
Re:Journalism (Score:1)
"They" are large corporations wielding the power to censor in the form of advertising dollars. Commercial news outlets receive the overwhelming majority of their funding from advertsing. It isn't even necessary for advertisers to make explicit threats. Editors and publishers water down or outright kill stories that reflect unfavorably on large advertisers. As publishers and broadcasters merge and are bought by corporations, news critical of corporations and their interests disappears. Disney now owns ABC. And who is the MS in MS-NBC? It's enough to make one paranoid!
For the top ten censored news stories, see Project Censored [sonoma.edu]
A journalist who throws out a story for mass peer review still retains the right and responsibility to determine what to do about all those unfavorable responses. Slashdotters did not decide the fate of the original Jane's report, Jane's did.
Re:The Katz Factor (Score:1)
I meant this is a massive article with out very much substance.
I quite enjoy in-depth articles with alot of substance.
Nothing personal Mr. Katz
Re:Getting Paid (Score:2)
Maybe the Editorial Board is unnecessary, I don't know. Without some editing, I doubt it [Slashdot] would ever be taken seriously in the industry.
Don't we already have an editorial board? I thought they were called moderators.
Sure, We, the geeks of Slashdot have editors, called moderators, but this may not be the kind of editing required to get these reports taken seriously.
Let me ask you, should Rob had told Jane's "Sure, we'll ask the Slashdot geeks about cyberterrorism for you, but instead of putting together an article in your book from the responses, just put the URL to our discussion in your book. We have all the editing you need."?
It wouldn't have flown and frankly, the Jane's article will probably be more accessible to most of the people interested in the subject matter than the Slashdot discussion ever would.
I liken Open Analysis to Open Source, with Open Analysis the ideas are all there for free on Slashdot, just like with Open Source the source is all out there on ftp servers - for all to read and examine. But, there's a premium service where we edit it and digest it into a form that you'll be more likely to be able to use. This is what the various Linux distribution projects do for Linux, put it into a form that people are more likely to be able to use.
Yeah, right... And the best technology is always adopted by the market.
As I said, CIOs aren't going to read Slashdot, maybe they should. I think they are interested in what we have to say. If we could meet them in the middle a bit, give them our insights in a form more familiar to them, we might be able to help them in their decision making processes that directly affect our lives and society.
As it stands, most CIOs will stop reading Slashdot immediately after seeing their first "First!" Comment.
Look, I'm not sold on adding a bunch of infrastructure to try to make Slashdot into a new-media Industry Analyst platform. I don't know about any of this.
I do know that now, I read more good stuff on Slashdot everyday than I can read in a year of ZDNet publications, or 5 Analysts Whitepapers. If there was some way we could get the Best of Slashdot before a larger audience, we might all benefit.
Summing up /. (Score:1)
Jane's IR article in reality may end up a summary article of all the comments posted on
In the future there may be a lot of sites like
My point is that this sort of forum would be ideal for putting an idea out there and collecting the opinions and stories from alot of different people and collating them to make a story, such as that in Jane's IR. Even without them posting the original flawed story, just a bit of background and a few outline points to argue may have produced the same comments as posting the whole article.
I for one would probably more likely read the 'summmarised' version of the comments. Unfortunately with anything there is a downside. Writer bias as always would creep in, perhaps it should be created by whacking them all in a Word document and doing an AutoSummarise. Love to see how any anti-M$ threads would turn out.
regards, reman
Re:Getting Paid (Score:1)
Whoa! Good analogy! But no one distribution is going to please all of the people all of the time.
Yeah, right... And the best technology is always adopted by the market.
Ouch. I guess I asked for that. Maybe what we need isn't an editorial board but a nice translucent plastic case, and snazzy designer colors!
If there was some way we could get the Best of Slashdot before a larger audience, we might all benefit.
Yeah, but who gets to decide what is the Best of Slashdot? Hint - use the analogy, Luke! It's the same person who gets to decide which is the Best Distribution.
This paper I got.... (Score:1)
Re:Getting Paid (Score:1)
Sure, but it won't hurt to put a nice box around it and sell it in stores.
Kind of goes well with the Andover IPO when you think about it!
Better than a Tyranny of a Minority? (Score:1)
--
Re:Fatal flaw (Score:1)
Given that we are all humans, the only way we have to get at the truth is in the use of social processes that seem to have a good track record in producing the truth with few errors. And we have one in hand: peer review. (Science is another, but it doesn't really apply here; the topic being journalism.) Further, there is a new social organization for truth production here on
As to the libertarian orientation of
I suggest two thoughts in response. First, perhaps the fact that the "best" techies (as determined by
Second, if it really is a problem, then there is room for a competing left-wing version of
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
-Leonard
Re:Fatal flaw (Score:1)
Nothing wrong with bias if you know what it is (Score:1)