Re: installation, Linux source code
On 2004-03-12, Chris Metzler penned:
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:32:36 -0600
> John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>>
>> Chris Metzler writes:
>> > Pick a specific topic that you're *expert* in, compared to the general
>> > /. population. Find in the archives and read a discussion on that
>> > topic. Look at the +3, +4 and +5 posts only. Do you really find them
>> > that impressive? My bet is that the answer will be "no."
>>
>> Now do likewise for the general media. The difference? The articles
>> are always written in an authoritative tone, and there is _no_
>> discussion and_no_ comments.
>
> I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. It seems like you're
> saying that one source of crappy information (e.g. a news story in
> your local newspaper) isn't as good as a different source of crappy
> information (i.e. /.), because even though /.'s information is
> crappy, there's a lot *more* of it. (since, after all, it's in that
> discussion and commentary at /. that the crappiness resides)
Er, no. At least, that's not how I understood it.
As I understand it,
Both official media sources and slashdot can contain inaccurate
statements. The difference is, slashdot actually offers the chance for
uncensored peer review and commentary. Moderation isn't censorship --
you can still read the comments if you want to.
--
monique
Reply to: