Rebuttal (Score 4)

This article initially impressed me as conservative claptrap, yearning for a day when the traditional media was less liberal and more representative. The hapless Matthew Priestley guises this fundamental complaint in a haphazard analysis of Slashdot.

Slashdot is anything but traditional--something that should be apparent to everyone reading it. Making comparisons between the New York Times and Slashdot turn Priestley's criticisms to non sequtors. Slashdot is not the New York Times. It does not suffer from "rogue" reporters in the same sense. Further, it does not claim to be a heterogenous group. Slashdot's homogeniality is emblazoned for all to see on the top of the page, "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."

Another striking feature of the article is its confusion of "authority" with "credibility." Priestley notes that "no opinion is authoritative until it runs the Slashdot gauntlet." Yet, in the next section, he criticizes the anonymous and user submitted comments -- which he argues are the same thing, as DrDeath is just as anonymous as Anonymous Coward -- for destroying possible credibility. He contends that it would be a good thing to have Madeline Albright's comments receive a higher score than DrDeath or some AC.

John Katz, the celebrated columnist of Slashdot, is popular because of what he writes, not because of who he is. The same should be and is true for Slashdot's users. If Madeline Albright has something to say, it should be judged on the content.

If content and source are intertwined, this approach becomes problematic. Clearly if Madeline Albright said that we had just bombed the Balkans that should be different from if DrDeath said we just bombed the Balkans. Slashdot has no method of dealing with this. But come the day when the Secretary of State wants to post a comment, CmdrTaco will find a way to verify his or her identity.