On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:15:23 -0600 Kent West <westk@acu.edu> wrote: > Marc Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:46:12AM -0600, Kent West wrote: >> >>> Don't you read Slashdot? >>> >> >> I really hope there's a smiley that's supposed to be there that I just >> can't see. >> >> Why would anyone *ever* consider SlashCrap any sort of news source >> worth paying attention to? It's an embarassment to the FOSS community. >> > > That's pretty much what Colin said also. But my answer is the same. > Slashdot (actually the talkbacks) is where you get all sorts of > viewpoints, not just the one or two that the newsies give you. Yes, you get a lot of viewpoints at /. The problem is that: 30% are trolls; 30% are expressions of opinion without substantive explanation/ justification (the equivalent of "Me too!" or "Not me!"); 30% are "explanations" of configuration procedures, or software capabilities, or scientific issues, or whatever -- things about which one can be factual -- that are absolutely wrong; 10% are legitimate content, with insightful opinions, or correct explanations of coding principles or configuration options or the implications of scientific paradigms or whatever (but of that 10%, half of it is redundant to something posted earlier in the discussion). . . .so you're really reading for about 5-10% of the discussion content. If that. And it takes time to sort through all the crap to find the worthwhile comments. And on those occasions where I sit down and read /., I get to the end of an hour, and look at what I actually *learned* over that hour, and think "man, I could have spent that time a lot better." My "expertise," such as it is, is not in computers, but in physics -- an area of physics that gets a lot of stories on /. When I hear about a relevant story there, or see its headline in an RSS aggregator, or whatever, I often go there and check it out, even though I always end up frustrated and regret it later. About 75% of the comments in such stories that make a scientific assertion are just plain wrong. In the past, I've jumped in and tried to clarify things, and post what the paradigm in the field really implies, and all that; and I've seen a couple of other people from the field doing the same. But in the sea of misinformation, it feels like trying to put out a housefire with a squirt gun. And I read all the complete and utter bollocks there, and I can't help but wonder "Jeez, I wonder if it's even worse than I thought in discussions on other topics where I *don't* have much expertise, and thus will spot even less of the just-plain-wrong content?" For me, at least, there's the "somebody else" test: occasionally /. links to things that I find interesting; and when I look at /. and I see such links, I sometimes pass them on to others that I suspect would also find them interesting. But I can't remember the last time I encouraged someone else to go and check out the general discussion on a particular article. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Attachment:
pgpkFrUpqsgWp.pgp
Description: PGP signature