×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LA Times Pulls Wikitorial, Blames Slashdot

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the now-thats-a-little-below-the-belt dept.

Media 678

ubermiester writes "The LA Times pulled down it's "beta" wikitorial after people began inserting obscene content faster than the editors could remove it. Though there is nothing on the LA Times editorial page or in the general coverage, the NY Times notes (free reg req) the fact that the bulk of the vandalism occurred after a posting about the wikitorial appeared on Slashdot and goes on to quote a member of the LA Times editorial staff as saying, "Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience that, to be kind, is mischievous and to be not so kind, is malicious". " Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

678 comments

Dammit Taco! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873172)

Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*.
Dammit Taco! Which are the malicious ones, the 60% or the 40%? Argh!

Re:Dammit Taco! (2, Funny)

CKnight (92200) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873264)

That depends on many factors.

- The day of the week
- Access to caffeine
- PMS

Taking those variables into account will always swing the Mischief factor.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873179)

I have the honor and the distinction of having the first post on this story.

Thank you Slashdot.

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873197)

no, you don't. =P

Re:First Post (1)

big.iron.wiz (773525) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873254)

Unfortunatly enought, users tend to have this kind of actitude, participating only to gain the spotlight, even if for reasons not related with the content it self.

(Cinical remark) Good thing we have Slashdot moderators to give a zero score to this kind of participation.

What did they do? (5, Funny)

FriedTurkey (761642) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873180)

I bet the entire article was changed to "frist post".

Re:What did they do? (4, Interesting)

GMC-jimmy (243376) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873349)

There's two worlds here. Real life with real people, and then a fantasy where everything is as it should be.

I wonder which world they're living in ?

Now the only left after that is to find someone to blame when things aren't as thay should be.

Well Taco, it's not a surprise, really (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873182)

That you'd be so proud of such immature and puerile behaviour.

Re:Well Taco, it's not a surprise, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873257)

Or that you'd use such redundant and repetitive adjectives.

Re:Well Taco, it's not a surprise, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873369)

I, for one, found the adjectives superfluous and duplicative, in the finest /. tradition.

LOL (4, Funny)

RayDude (798709) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873183)

Those mean old Slashdot readers, pointing out the obvious all teh time!

It would have happened sooner or later, they should thank us for finding the bugs right away.

Raydude

I can finally say... (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873184)

I am proud of Slashdot

(wipes tear from eye)..

I just knew someday, you'd make something of yourself...

Re:I can finally say... (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873345)

There are sites that are linked to allmost daily on /., for example, Google or the Wikipedia. And those sites hasn't been vandalized by us, actually, those sites apreciate the traffic that slashdot generates. They should think what they are doing wrong, not blame it on us.

Re:I can finally say... (2, Interesting)

Cylix (55374) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873401)

Our trolls should be proud as they are getting even more attention or at least proving a point about how things work.

Honestly, it's already been proven, you need a ratio of moderators to posters and a measly small in house staff won't cut it.

It's either that or posts must be approved.

I wonder how wikipedia handles it...

Fuck them! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873186)

Who's fucking obscene?

Slashdot wiki (2, Interesting)

Jump (135604) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873194)

Let's proof that /.-ers are better people.
Create a slashwiki and see if it lasts longer.

Re:Slashdot wiki (2)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873302)

My bandwidth use would be reduced considerably as the thousands of goatse.cx images would be coming from my internal proxy.

Re:Slashdot wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873309)

Isn't that called Digg?

Nah, (0, Redundant)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873204)

Couldn't be more than 65/35!

Seriously though, you're going to have malicious people do that kind of thing anywhere, but to blame one particular site's users for that kind of behavior is just wrong. "Tech-Savvy" doesn't mean malicious. Its like the adjectives Yellow and Big.
Just because you're Big, doesn't mean you're Yellow, but there are definitely some Big Yellow folks out there.. (Big Bird?) Ok, maybe that was a bad analogy...

Re:Nah, (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873262)

hm..

If The L.A. Times knew what they were talking about, they'd know better than blaming /. -readers, as they (we) are the least likely clientele to reduce ourselves to that kind of activity.

My guess is, that L.A. Times just lost some-short-of a million "subscribers", so to say..

Re:Nah, (1)

drmarcj (807884) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873272)

"Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience that, to be kind, is mischievous and to be not so kind, is malicious"

It could have been much worse... it could have been posted on Fark [fark.com] instead.

Agreed. (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873286)

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
They couldn't take it, took their ball and went home.

Seriously, don't set something like that up on the Internet if you aren't willing to deal with the Trolls.

What the hell.... (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873206)

Of course that was going to happen. I wouldn't exactly blame the slashdot crowd (although I'm sure a number of "I'm 12!!! Look how much I can swear!!!" slashdot readers and even some other readers at least though of it), because a major paper gets a lot of readers anyways. And since posts are moderated here, most have probably begun to realize "Hey, people don't like trolling and obscenity..."

They should have ridden it out... (5, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873211)

After the novelty wears off, the juveniles move on to the next place. Here in CA, school just got out for the summer. Coincidence?

Great attitude (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873215)

Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*.

And you're proud of that? I'm not sure it's as funny for everyone who might have benefitted from the service that's been taken down.

Re:Great attitude (1)

MadMorf (118601) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873310)

....might have benefitted from the service that's been taken down.

Well, it sounds to me like they were pretty thin-skinned as well as a little short-sighted, if they didn't think this kind of thing would happen...

Re:Great attitude (5, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873378)

Sure, it may have been a useful service if it was well implimented. It wasn't well implimented. You make a place for the public to post anything they want on tEh Intarweb, and you will get crap. Period. Email/Usenet has SPAM, Slashdot has trolls. Email servers can see when the same message is sent to many users. Slashdot has moderators.

The only protection they had in place for dealing with the masses of the Internet was, "gee, I hope we don't get popular." Slashdot has a readership of about a half million. What if they were featured prominently in the NY Times, and on CNN, and a few million people realised that they could say "Bob wuz here." Slashdot wasn't the problem. You don't have to be tech savvy to edit a wiki.

They could have made a system of moderation like slashdot has. They could have allowed a trusted community of editors. They could have done something more than expect that a few official editors could keep track of a public space in the Internet, and keep it clean. Bad web developers, no twinkie. Imagine if Commander taco had to remove every troll post from slashdot by himself!

great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873218)

Now everyone is going to think we're all a bunch of goatse men or something...

Mischievious and Malicious??? (2, Funny)

selectspec (74651) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873221)

Getting lectured on ethics from the staff of the New York Times is interesting.

Bah, He's Just Jealous! (2, Funny)

deadtree9 (772882) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873223)

It sounds like Michael Newman is just jealous that Slashdot has a MUCH larger viewing audience than his rag!

Re:Bah, He's Just Jealous! (2, Funny)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873350)

Actually the L.A. Times has a MUCH larger viewing audience than /.

I hate to break it to you but there are more "normal" people than nerds. Return back to your cave now.

Like a swarm of army ants devouring and pillaging (1)

msbmsb (871828) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873224)

No one can stop the slashdot idiots except MacGyver.

Sorry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873229)

That was me, sorry about that. I thought I was on Wikipedia.

Can't say I disagree (4, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873232)

Lets face it, slashdot breeds trolls. I see two reasons for it:
1.) The using a shotgun to kill mice [slashdot.org] method for banning users. To paraphrase: Banning entire subnets to catch a single troll, and, therefore, banning tons of innocents in the process. They use vinegar to lure bees instead of honey. Lets face it, the moderation system isn't good, and its just forcing more and more malcontent and loss of posting.

2.) AC's. Really, that's what kills slashdot. If AC posting was removed, there would be a lot less crap. Making an ID is free, easy, and doesn't require you to give out any personal information. Why not tie stuff to an ID so its easier to get rid of the crap? Instead of IP bans, you can setup an IP 'greylist' that means if you create an account from the greylist, they can't post much or have to wait a couple days after registration to post.

Instead of trying to suspend everyones posting to stop trolls, how about we use a little insight and postive effects to combat trolling and crapflooding?

Re:Can't say I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873305)

We can see you.

Re:Can't say I disagree (4, Interesting)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873336)

There are limits to using technological solutions for social-cultural problems. A lot of Slashdot readers are poorly socialized jerks. There's no workaround for that. There are plenty of non-AC trolls.

Ultimately, the best you can do is to try to encourage people to not be jerks. User-specific blacklists might help, too.

Re:Can't say I disagree (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873351)

AC's. Really, that's what kills slashdot.

u r teh ghey

Re:Can't say I disagree (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873359)

AC is important. It lets people say things they might not otherwise say. Sure, there is lots of GNAA insanity, but in this awful modern world where almost everything is tracked, people rightfully try to cover their tracks when they say something that might upset the powers that be. Someday some AC posts might keep us from slipping into being another China... or worse.

Re:Can't say I disagree (2, Interesting)

CFTM (513264) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873362)

I agree with removing the AC. There are few very situations that I can think of where I understand why a person would post something that is non-inflamatory through as an AC. You can read shit without registration but if you want to post you should be culpable...just my two cents worth.

Re:Can't say I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873389)

Sure, like I'm going to screw with more cookie problems to register to comment -- I've too much cookie junk to fight with already.

Re:Can't say I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873365)

If AC posting was removed, there would be a lot less crap.

I agree, Air Conditioned posts are ruining this site. Everyone should be hot and uncomfortable to post on here. Apparently, lack of AC constipates the trolls. Excessive warmth, humidity, and constipation to all! Amen Brother.

ACs make slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873387)

Actually, you are wrong. The ability to
easily respond to posts anonymously makes ./
an attractive site. Can't you
"registered lusers" configure things
to filter out ACs if you want to. So why the bitching?

With the "group think" mentality that often
seizes things here on slashdot (
witness what happens to anybody that
criticizes Apple or KDE around here),
why would anybody bother to post thoughtful
posts under a registered name?

Re:Can't say I disagree (1)

bkissi01 (699085) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873392)

AC doesn't really hurt slashdot at all because unless you change the default setting to browse at a lower threshold of 0 you won't see them. This doesn't hurt the system, because responsible moderators have the choice to moderate the comments up.

Ac's are the dirt that keeps SLashdot growing (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873399)

I dislike about 99.9 of what AC's post. But if you remove them SLashdot will wither, and it won't even solve the problem as you'll just see a lot of brand-new users posting the same crap.

Indeed having the AC outlet gives people who want to mess around a way to post that is very easy for me to filter if I desire. If you start making these people register SLashdot will become far more unreadable. Slashdot has developed about the best compromise there is, which is why it's still very popular and widely read.

Not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873233)

Half million users cannot be that bad.

T'ell w'tem all! (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873234)

Burn teh NYT burn burn burn!

*grin*

All things considered, I think I understand *why* they say such things, but given their place as a public news source, I think *where* they are saying it is just totally inappropriate.

The *why* is quite simple, their techs and point-haired's have probably gone nuts trying to get accurated site-visitation numbers, and every time a story goes up on slashdot, we simply obliterate the accuracy of their logging. So I don't expect them to be happy with slashdot.

I *do* however expect them to be professional journalists. Perhaps I expect too much?

Re:T'ell w'tem all! (3, Insightful)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873333)

The *why* is quite simple, their techs and point-haired's have probably gone nuts trying to get accurated site-visitation numbers, and every time a story goes up on slashdot, we simply obliterate the accuracy of their logging. So I don't expect them to be happy with slashdot.

While I perfectly understand why that would piss off people at the NYT, and how Slashdot is known for obliterating webservers in minutes, calling Slashdot malicious because of the famed Slashdot Effect is like calling an elephant malicious because it steps on a hamster.

Re:T'ell w'tem all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873364)

who said anything about the NYT?

Re:T'ell w'tem all! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873402)

If that is true, then their Admins are pethetic. If this is a problem, then they should write people who come from slashdot to a different log file?

Referrer? (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873238)

It would be interesting to see how many of those posts were made by users who visited the site by clicking on the actual link in the Slashdot story.

It never even got to tuesday (0, Flamebait)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873239)

Impressive work by Slashdotters there, especially as I'd have expected them to wait until tuesday [slashdot.org] to be this mean.

On a more serious note, it'd be nice to know why the LA Times had these problems but services like Wikipedia have generally avoided it. I'm going to make a guess that Wikipedia et al have had to put up with it but over time have (a) become boring as targets for defacers and (b) have grown to add procedures that discourage simple defacing in this way.

Unlike Slashdot, whose moderation and IP restriction systems seem to consistantly avoid doing anything about the problems while causing the rest of us no end of grief.

Muy Mal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873243)

Excuses, excuses... I blame Canada.

On one hand... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873246)

We shouldn't have done what we did. On the other hand, however, what we did isn't anything out of the norm for the internet in general.

So them complaining about it is akin to a new car owner complaining that all this oil, grease and gas is making their engine not look shiny.

We kemo sahbee? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873355)

Slashdot is not group think. Some people who visit slashdot may have done that, but don't lump me in with the assholes that do this kind of crap.

It was a silly idea in the first place (4, Insightful)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873248)

Wiki's have their purpose. Collaborative story writing? Sure. Editorials and news stories? Maybe not - after all, an editorial is suppose to be a group of people's opinion, so in that case you want a "read-only" wiki with "write" ability to a very small subset.

What the major newspapers should do however is allow comments (a la slashdot style - include user moderation and some basic spam/troll protection). This would let them to two things:

1. Make more money off of ads (Google or otherwise) as people come back to see who's commented on their comments.

2. Readers can point out errors or omissions - yes, this can have an echo chamber effect such as when a group of liberals and conservatives fight it out about who's got the bigger penis and/or breasts, but overall it might be useful if a anonymous commentator could point a reporter towards another source or more information, or bring another opinion in.

Again, wiki's can be a great thing, but perhaps the format they chose was not the best one. And to blame Slashdot readers is a little silly - I'm sure there were many, many other people who wanted to just grief the article to death. Slashdot just helped people know about it.

Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.

their primary purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873315)

Again, wiki's can be a great thing...

Yes indeed. Like increasing literacy. Perhaps, if enough take part, one day our people will even know the difference in spelling between possessive and plural.

fdsafdsaf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873251)

BLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whaBLABLAH BBLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whaBLBLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whaBLABLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whatrever fiqofwesdaz;H BLAH bBLAH BL whatrever fiqofwesdaz;treveBLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whatrever fiqofwesdaz;r fiqofwesdaz; blah blah feiwofhweoiewaxzzABLAH BLAH bBLAH BL whatrever

LA Times wiki (3, Funny)

ChrisF79 (829953) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873261)

It's as censored as a Chinese blog... and congrats to slashdot. THis may be the first time a site was taken down by slashdot users without it being a bandwidth issue.

Re:LA Times wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873353)

It's as censored as a Chinese blog

I think we've just found the hot simile of 2005.

For those not-so-tech-saavy slashdot readers (2, Informative)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873266)

or if you just don't use/know about bugmenot (w00t karma!)

By ALICIA C. SHEPARD
Published: June 21, 2005

A Los Angeles Times experiment in opinion journalism lasted just two days before the paper was forced to shut it down Sunday morning after some readers repeatedly posted obscene photos.

On Friday, the paper introduced an online feature it called a wikitorial, asking Web site readers to improve a 1,000-word editorial, "War and Consequences," on the Iraq war.

Readers were invited to insert information, make changes or come to different conclusions. The model was based on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where anyone can add facts or update information.

"It sounds nutty," said an introduction to the wikitorial in Friday's paper. "Plenty of skeptics are predicting embarrassment; like an arthritic old lady who takes to the dance floor, they say, The Los Angeles Times is more likely to break a hip than be hip. Nevertheless, we proceed. We're calling this a 'public beta,' which is a fancy way of saying we're making something available even though we haven't completely figured it out."

What they had not planned for was hard-core pornography, which the paper's software could not ward off. Its open-source wikitorial software allowed readers to post without vetting from editors, who could take down posts only after they appeared. Any contributor who persisted in bad behavior could be blocked.

During most of Friday and Saturday, readers thoughtfully altered the editorial. By Friday afternoon, hundreds had weighed in. Some did add profanity but just as quickly a Web master from the paper took it down.

"Nothing bad happened really until after midnight on Saturday," said Michael Newman, deputy editorial page editor. At 8:32 p.m. Saturday, a posting on www.Slashdot.org, which bills itself as "news for nerds," directed readers to the Times wikitorial.

"Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience that, to be kind, is mischievous and to be not so kind, is malicious," Mr. Newman said. "We were taking stuff down as soon as it went up and staving them off. Finally we had to go to bed. Someone called the newsroom a little bit before 4 a.m. and said there's something bad on your Web site, and so we just took the whole site down."

The paper put a note on the editorial page Web site explaining the disappearance and thanking the "thousands" of people who logged on.

Andres Martinez, editorial page editor, said: "I was heartened by how seriously people took it. I was really impressed by the level of high-minded participation. It's not a total shock it ended up this way. Now we will evaluate what this means."

A 60/40 split is still a lot of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873267)

Taking it as 60% "mischievous" that's 300,000 people to take down a site. Or, if it was meant as 40% that's 200,000. In either case, that's an ample amount of people that editors would not be able to keep up with.

Slashdot giveth, and slashdot taketh away (5, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873269)

It's funny, because /. itself went through much the same thing. But by careful filtering and moderation, it's been kept reasonably useful. You still have all kinds of morons posting here, but you don't ever have to see them if you don't want to. And we don't even have editors, really.

Oh great. (1)

kc0re (739168) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873271)

Good idea, poorly implemented. Had absolutely nothing to do with Slashdot. People fear the unknown and then therefore blame it on them. /shakes head\ wiki's encylopedia seems to be working quite well, what's your problem LA Times? Don't blame us, or what you don't know, just realize that you poorly implemented a good idea and shutup.

and the LA Times wins... (1)

perigee369 (837140) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873275)

...A lifetime of ridicule here at Slashdot! They have won our FUD-zombies of the day award! *giggle*

Not true but... (1)

gremlins (588904) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873282)

Well we all know that this is all Bullshit but it will become true because he just insulted all of Slashdot. That means you!!!

Why blame /. for Wiki problems? (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873292)

I mean, when middle school kids are hacking Wikipedia sites, it's not like it's secure in the first place.

That said, the person blaming /.ers for it should realize that's a Troll and Flamepost mod, and shouldn't be surprised by people's reactions ...

LA Times Accuses Others of Being Malacious? (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873293)

'...and goes on to quote a member of the LA Times editorial staff as saying, "Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience that, to be kind, is mischievous and to be not so kind, is malicious".'

I say the crap and disinformation that the LA Times puts out, combined with its total lack of perspective (Editor: Hrm...black gay man wants others to pay for sex reassignment surgery, Russia launches nukes on US...let's put the sex reassignment story on top, front-page, nuclear Armageddon page 10, 2 lines of copy.) is malacious to anyone who reads the thing. Of course, LA Times is just the bastard inbred offspring of the NYT, no prize itself.

C'mon Malda, Drinking the OSTG Marketing Kool-Aid? (0, Flamebait)

Real World Stuff (561780) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873298)

Apparently Michael Newman thinks that all half a million daily Slashdot readers are malicious, although I personally would guess more like a 60:40 split myself *grin*. Hey Taco, please do not confuse "hits" with "unique visitors". Your poor assessment of web metrics is why you only have peripheral input on the mechanics and operation of this site. I mean with the day-pass whore coming through the pipe who knows who you can alienate next. Thanks for the editorial you gin soaked, leased beamer driving nut-ball.

You're welcome! (5, Funny)

digitalamish (449285) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873300)

Just think, we gave you over a year's worth of experience in about 24 hours. We're not malicious, we're efficient!

Malicious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873301)

Hmmm.... I don't know what made them think slashdotters could be malicious [goatse.cx] ?

wikipeida (2, Insightful)

qwp (694253) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873307)

wikipedia doesn't have these problems
with /. links to them.
maybe the LA times needs to take a lesson
on content management from a open source project. ;P

So they essentially post flamebait.. (1)

jci (521890) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873321)

and are surprised that it degraded so quickly?
Without some form of responsibility (like a diff engine with soul-sucking registration that might actually work, I know.. I know) others are right:
It was going to be sooner or later, and slashdot simply made it sooner.
Wikipedia more or less works because it can contain posts and that its supposed to be factual information, not opinion.

Did they do their homework? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873322)

While I applaud their willingness to try something new, I seriously wonder how much thought went into this. Yes, wiki is wonderful and more or less self regulating. On the other hand, check out Slashdot for some of the -1 postings. There is ample evidence that there are MANY idiots out there with nothing better to do than deface cyberspace.

What did they expect? (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873323)

The service was obviously not well thought out, since they weren't able to cope with any kind of volume. They probably expected that the existing editorial staff could handle weeding out the graffiti.

I wondered whether a wiki was a good fit for an editorial site. Seems like the wrong model.

My best essays have always been the result of reacting to reader responses and making alterations. Probably something like the Slashdot Journal page format would have been better for them.

They could even have a real person looking at comments before they were published. The volume would tend to be self-limiting, since you'd be less likely to post comments if they never got out of the reviewer's backlog.

I cant beleive they took that down (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#12873324)

It took me an hour to discretely put in links to 'hello.jpg'....

I think he called us nerds (1)

spidereyes (599443) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873327)

"Slashdot has a tech-savvy audience..." Bastard must pay, he doesn't have the write to point out I haven't been with a women since conception. In the words Rick Vaughn from Major League: "Want me to drag him outta here, kick the shit out of him?"

We're probably better off. (2, Insightful)

mogrify (828588) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873338)

I'm all for pushing the boundaries, collaborating, finding new paradigms, whatever you want to call it. But most people I've met shouldn't be let anywhere near an editor's desk.

That said, it's good to give them a shot. An online community of sufficient size is clearly capable of producing quality content and dealing with constant vandalism. Slashdot and Wikipedia are examples of this. There are just too many people watching to let bad content stay around for long. It's too bad they got hit so early; if there had been a chance for more people to get involved, it probably would be self-regulating.

That is such BS (2, Funny)

chowdmouse (155597) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873340)

You make a editable page available to the PLANET and then are surprised when there's lots of problems with people posting "unacceptable" content?

BS I say...Put that in your required registration and smoke it.

The new Flashmob: Slashmob? (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873343)

Hey, Slashmob even sounds like Flashmob. It could be used to describe situations like this where a Slashdot mob was able to disrupt something, w/out the classic Slashdotting effect! In other words, if the server is still standing, but things on the target sight have changed due to Slashdot directed users hitting it, it will be due to a Slashmob.

Screencap (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873346)

OK, who has a screencap of the first GNAA post at LA Times? That's a press release I wanna read.

Also... who the fuck considers the goatse man "hardcore pornography?"

So, now the problem is... (5, Funny)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873388)

Now the problem in replying to this article is that if I troll in my reply am I trolling or being insightful? Or, if I try to be insightful about trolls, am I trolling?

Damn you Taco! How does one reply to a post about slashdot trolling properly?

In soviet russ... ...err.. no...
goatse.. no.. ...PROFIT!!!! err...

***USER BRAIN OVERLOAD. CORE DUMPED***

Wikis do not give equal voice. (4, Insightful)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 7 years ago | (#12873393)

From the BBC article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/technology/411 4312.stm [bbc.co.uk] ):
The online version of the paper started its "wikitorial" experiment last week. It was meant to give readers a "voice".

It was suspended after it was bombarded with inappropriate material.


The grad student who taught a tech for pre-service teachers class the semester before I took over was researching the use of wikis for his thesis. He kept preaching about how wikis give everyone a voice.

It was finally one of my history teaching majors who pointed out, "Wikis only give a voice to the last person who spoke."

Yes, you can look in the document history and all that, but who does? If the last person to speak was a liar, or wanted to put up some p0rn, or even wanted to spam the page with viagra adverts, that's what you get.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...