Editorial Wiki Debuts At LA Times

jgarzik writes "The L.A. Times newspaper has launched a new form of editorial, the wikitorial. The LA Times editorial staff introduces the new feature in this editorial, and the first wikitorial, War and Consequences , has already been posted. Is this an innovative new way to interact with readers, or will it be constantly defaced by reactionaries?"

Is this really necessary for news editorials?

I would think that comments to a news editiorial would do pretty much the same thing. What's the benefit of being able to edit someone else's opinion?

Re:Is this really necessary for news editorials?

What's the benefit of being able to edit someone else's opinion?

Personally, I would love to be able to edit the opinions of others so long as others don't get to edit mine. Especially useful would be if those changes propagated back to the brain of the original opinion author.

Re:Kind of silly.

Understatement - they've turned it off!

And of course it will be constantly defaced!

It is amazing that the LA Times would even try this since they do such a good job of "filtering" in their letters to the editor section. It is nominally 10/1 liberally biased.(That based on an unscientific poll my Dad did of the paper some years ago..) He and a couple hundred thousand others have dropped the paper because of it's bias. The paper's subscription rate have been rapidly declining over the last many years in large part due to this (the coming of the internet doubtless also has something to do with it).

The LA Times - even the Fish don't want to be wrapped up in it anymore!

Only "reactionaries" deface?

Why would radicals not also be capable of defacing it? And why use the word "deface" anyway? Are any opposing opinions automatically supposed to be "defacing" it?

Re:Only "reactionaries" deface?

Why would radicals not also be capable of defacing it? And why use the word "deface" anyway? Are any opposing opinions automatically supposed to be "defacing" it?

That's exactly what I wanted to know. It might as well have said "Will this be an effective means to bring the shining light of truth to the unwashed masses, or will the opposing party of darkness be able to subvert it to their own nefarious ends?"

Re:Only "reactionaries" deface?

Why would radicals not also be capable of defacing it?

Why, don't radicals have real opinions? Or only moderate minded people?

I think defacing must mean frosty piss and the like. Otherwise its not really a public forum at all.

Radical or activist?

Why would radicals not also be capable of defacing it? And why use the word "deface" anyway? Are any opposing opinions automatically supposed to be "defacing" it?

Yes. Kind of like how a crazy shit who agrees with me is an activist, and a crazy shit who disagrees with me is a radical or extremist.

You have two choices...

You can be a "member" of LA Times and let us fill your mailbos with shit, or you can not be a "member" and read our articles off the google cache.

Thanks, I think I'll stick with Google.

Re:You have two choices...

Actually, I have an account at latimes.com, and I don't think I get any email from them at all. (I used a tracking address, so I'd know if it was from them.)

I'm sure you lose your soul if you register, just like when you get your picture taken, but at least thus far they haven't sent me any spam.

Interestingly, if you want to participate in the wiki, that's a different sign-up. But at least the regular latimes.com sign-in appears to generate no spam.

Wrong question

What's currently important is not the question of "will it be defaced?", but "will it help removing some of the trenches that are in the US public opinion? Will it add positively to a constructive dialogue between the people?"

I think that it will not, because the predominant circles active on the internet today fall pretty nicely in line with the LA Times readership, so there are not that many dialogues between the rivaling parties. But add a editorial wiki to a bible belt newspaper, and there will surely be dialogue going on indeed.

Re:Wrong question

The world is already full of message boards, and they don't seem to have raised the level of dialogue. Check out slashdot any time a controversial topic is raised, and you'll see the supposedly smarter group of people here ranting like children.

As far as I can tell, the level of national dialogue has declined at the same rate as communication has improved. I think a few weeks of national time-out, where nobody is allowed to discuss Iraq, abortion, or evolution, are in order.

Re:Wrong question

and you'll see the supposedly smarter group of people here ranting like children.

Only half of the smarter group are ranting like children...depending upon which half you agree with :)

Re:Wrong question

Look, the world is full of message boards, but it's NOT full of intelligent people. When you overhear two people talking in a restaurant, they're often steadfast on a position they know nothing about, much like the masses you'll find at any message board.

Don't stereotype Slashdot. The membership consists of people who are barely into middle school and those who have their Ph. Ds, and just about every single person you can think of in between. We are not necessarily a smarter group, but the majority of us may be more knowledgable about certain topics (more specifically, "nerdy" ones.) There is no one particular forum where you will always find an intelligent debate; that quality is determined by firstly if the people debating have any idea what the hell they're talking about, and secondly if they are intelligent enough to express their ideas. The web is teeming with information. Unfortunately, most of it is probably worthless. However, don't become so pessimistic. I don't think that the level of national dialogue has declined. It's probably stayed the same. The internet has just given more ignorant people an easy way to express themselves.

My Reaction:

I'm off to go deface it right now!

It won't work

Wikis are good if you're trying to build something that does not contain opinionated material. Or at the very least you want to contain the editors to have pretty similar opinions. If you open it up to the public, there is no way you can come up with a coherent, opinionated view, because by definition people have their own opinions. The Wikipedia works because it has as one of its most fundamental rules the Neutral Point of View. Additionally, it's an effort to build an encyclopedia, which is meant to represent facts as they are. Wikis are also good for building documentation, which is pretty objective in its matter. Wikitorial has none of these qualities.

Re:It won't work

The Wikipedia works because

It doesn't always work. Sometimes urban myths and other popular misconceptions can be found. Before believing anything you read there you had better be sure to get confirmation elsewhere. Not too surprising when you consider that 10 year olds can be the editors. I have seen 'book report' style entries that were clearly written by a preteen for what must have been a school project. Truth cannot be determined by popular opinion.

I Prefer The Paper...

The only difference between the newspaper and the wikitorial is that the parakeet can read and take a dump on the newspaper at the same time. If the parakeet took a dump on my LCD monitor while reading the wikitorial, the cat would have a special treat.

Doesn't seem like the right format

In using wiki to maintain editorials, the paper is effectively telling the users to alter the content to match their own opinions and beliefs (since that's what most people would tend to do). Digestion of news is usually best done through reading many different opinions, each with an accredited source, to be able to form your own from the information. One 'unified' article in the wiki style doesn't seem to fit with this model, and I'm concious that a lot of people are trying to force wiki's to become the new 'blog' style phenomenon of internet publishing.

To me, a traditional comments thread would be far more appropriate for news reporting. A clear example of the suitability of these two methods can be seen here on slashdot as using wiki for a substitute to comments.. clearly something that would be cumberous at best, and most likely completely hopeless at effectively digesting stories.

defaced by who?

or will it be constantly defaced by reactionaries

If it's anything like other wikis, it will be constantly defaced by clueless idiots. A few of those might be "reactionaries", but most are just losers who are incapcable of making a positive contribution to anything.

Ahh, the Internet

This anus allows L.A. Times readers to extend or argue cocks with editorial positions taken by the newsboner. It uses wikipedia syntax for erecting penises. -- http://www2.latimesinteractive.com/wiki/index.php/ Wikitorial [latimesinteractive.com]

Bad use of wiki.

Newspapers need to embrace the Web, but not like this.

When we reporters go out and gather information and write a story, there needs to be a way for readers who know the topic to say, "hey, this is wrong," or "hey, you forgot this key point." After all, the reporter is almost always less knowledgable on any given article that he writes than his sources and certain readers.

I could see a wiki or wiki-like technology being useful in correcting news errors (*cough* avoid jayson blair *cough*) or adding new perspectives (*cough* slashdot writ large *cough*) or even gathering story ideas. What's more, such technology would turn newspaper websites from electronic reprints into something even better than the print edition.

But an editorial is supposed to be the voice of the newspaper itself. It is supposed to be an opinion with special significance, informed by all the reporting and editing the newspaper does over time, backed by an awesome institutional storehouse of knowledge.

In short, the whole point of an editorial is that it represents one particular viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. If the Wall Street Journal as a collective entity repeatedly slams Congressional Republicans for pork-barrel politics and fiscal irresponsibility, as it has in recent weeks, that carries particular weight, because the WSJ backs the Republicans more often than not and because it arguably keeps closer watch on the intersection between the economy and government than anyone else.

Likewise, there is reason to care when the LA Times forms a new opinion about California government, the entertainment industry or myraid other subjects at which its expertise is authoritative. If you disagree, fine. You can write an op-ed opinion piece, or letter to the editor. You should certainly be empowered to post a comment on the LA Times website or a trackback to your own weblog post.

But why on earth would I, LA Times reader, want you monkeying with the actual text of the LA Times' editorial? Why would I want to read a version of the editorial you defaced? If I care about your opinion -- maybe you're a film director who disagreed with the LAT on an entertainment industry editorial -- I would much rather read something you wrote from scratch than your own "version" of the LAT editorial.

This seems misguided and frankly I am baffled why opinion editor Michael Kinsley, who used to helm Slate.com -- does not know better.

Trollery from both conservatives and liberals.

I've been looking through the diffs, and I see nothing but back and forth trollery from both conservatives and liberals. Instead of constructive thinking, it just looks like pointless, egotistical "I'm correct, you're not" bickering back and forth. With all this bickering, nothing is actually getting accomplished.

A truly democratic-like society requires action, not just constant, self-righteous argumentery. But that won't happen as long as the Big Media continues to push for the liberal/conservative dichotomy, the whole "You're either with us or you're against us" attitude. We need to remember that we are all humans, and we must work together for real change, rather than just bicker on some experimental wiki.

It's closed

Looks like the LA Times decided their experiment wasn't working after a few vandals decided to deface it with porn and goatsex images.

Before that, it was a back and forth between various camps pushing their viewpoint or trying to keep a more neutral tone to the editorial.

Now what is interesting is the google cache has one version of the wiki - making it appear to be the consensus version when it is only one of many edited versions. Which means, unless you cache every edit, Google will not provide a very robust view of the dialogue inherent in a Wiki; yet people will view their cache as authoritative.

Re:Actionist vs. reactionist

The only time the left is concerened about the truth is when it agrees with their version of reality.

This is the real problem with web forums, wiki's and other user generated/interactive media in general. The medium self selects for people that don't w

Re:The War? Again?!

I don't have a problem with someone who has a genuine faith and is in public office.

Neither do I. I just have a serious problem with people who make a big deal about their faith, and act completely contrary to it. Its really puzzling to me though how Christians can allow themselves to be allied with the war machine.

(see Islamic law or the Spanish Inquisition)

Or the crusades [wikipedia.org] (I linked not because I doubt you know about them, just that its an interesting read in the context of today). When I was in school (in Canada), we were forced to stand and say the lords prayer in public school. This is how my antagonism toward Christianity started. Unless I could prove to them that I (actually my parents, my view wasn't important at all) was of a faith other than Christian, there was no way to abstain. Apparently not having faith in anything in particular wasn't allowed.

These days I have gained a lot of respect for Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. I resent non-believers taking advantage of people who do believe in these things. They have a lot to teach us. Thats why I feel so strongly that actions should speak much louder than words, and we should focus on what Jesus would say if he were alive today. Forget about if its true or not, its not really that important.