BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Wikitorial redux

7 comments on Wikitorial redux

Wikitorial redux

: The LA Times wikitorial says it is “closed” now and I see no way to get in to see the latest version or the history. No explanation: Just closed.

Hope I didn’t help break it. I said that having both sides of an issue fight it out over the same text just wouldn’t work in a wiki. Wikis are about collaboration; you may disagree with your fellows but the mutual goal is clear. A wikitorial is bound to turn into a tug-of-war.

So I suggested in a listserv discussion of it that there should be two wiki versions of the editorial: one for proponents of the editorial’s stand, one for opponents; let them put their best stuff forward and may the best side win. It seemed to be that this would be like an Oxford debate, brought to software.

Wikigod Jimbo Wales replied in the listserv on Friday: “I changed it to this earlier today. I’m not sure the LA Times wants me setting policy for their site, but it is a wiki after all, and what was there made no sense.”

I went today to see what was happening and find it closed. Drat.

: See Tim Windsor’s link in the comments explaining what happened.

: See Chris Anderson’s reassessment of the experiment.

7 responses to “Wikitorial redux”

  1. tim Windsor Avatar
    tim Windsor

    There’s an explanation:
    Where is the Wikitorial?
    Unfortunately, we have had to remove this feature, at least temporarily, because a few readers were flooding the site with inappropriate material.
    Thanks and apologies to the thousands of people who logged on in the right spirit.
    >>>
    Judging from the screenshots on the Slashdot discussion of this, it’s hard to blame them for pulling it down, at least temporarily.

  2. Ernest Miller Avatar
    Ernest Miller

    I’m not really sure that having two opposing editorials is that great an idea either. All I think it will do is create a false dichotomy. Particularly with regard to topics as complex as the Iraq War, there aren’t simply two opposing points of view. Isn’t that part of the problem with media as it is? Republicans say this, Democrats say that? And, if we’re going to have that, why have a base editorial at all? Why not simply pose the question? I think it would be better if the LA Times simply collated and organized responses to their editorials from blogs. Not everything should be wikified.

  3. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Thanks, Tim, I sure couldn’t find that.
    Ernie: Yes, the danger is that we recreate Crossfire in text. That’s why I make reference to the Oxford debate model. It’s more like a resolution that each side debates for and against. I’m not sure that will work, either. But as Tim has shown, the one-boxing-ring-fits-all model hasn’t paid off; it was bound to devolve.

  4. Ernest Miller Avatar
    Ernest Miller

    The Oxford debate model might work for certain, particular topics that tend to lead to dichotomies. Particularly at the local level for limited questions, it might work. “Resolved: The Iraq War was a Good Idea” won’t. I would rather the LA Times sponsor LA-oriented updates to the Wikipedia. There is a lot about LA that doesn’t have a proper Wikipedia entry.

  5. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    E: Damned fine idea. But here’s the odd thing about it: such entries would be a new form of news/fact (province of the newsroom, eh?) vs. opinion (province of the editorial page). That’s the sort of odd, old organizational considerations that get in the way of progress…

  6. Ernest Miller Avatar
    Ernest Miller

    Well, then, it should be perfect for Michael Kinsley. :-)

  7. Scott Butki Avatar
    Scott Butki

    Hi Jeff. Liked your posts about the Times wiki experiment and mentioned it all in my blog today.
    Keep up the good work.