On 2004-03-12, Chris Metzler penned: > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:32:36 -0600 > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]