(Hurricaine Gustav) what is Craig Newmark "missing"?

MORE:

Sam,

Given their profits *and* lofty talk (craigslist is not just a run of the mill corporation, it is one that pretends to be something else), craigslist and Craig should be financially helping.

Delia

P.S. Do I think they would do it? not given their track record... (NEVER done it in the past as far as I'm aware, although they appear to have been racking in humongous profits... year after year after year...) D.

...
re: "Is something happening now I'm missing?" (comment-128475124)

yep! looks like you are "missing" the obvious, again; what were your profits this year? you should be able to help financially...

Delia

P.S. looks like this is going to be worse than Katrina so money is going to be one sure thing that will be needed D.

Craig's blog is "insightful"?

EVEN MORE:

courtesy link to related comments on my blog:

MORE:

Michael,

I see... (it was just not obvious)

re: "contact us" page:

http://www.informationweek.com/contactus.jhtml

Delia

P.S. I'm even more baffled by your reaction to Craig now that I know your background...

P.P.S. and he *has* been on Facebook for a good while.

re: "Should you be on Facebook? I'm surprised you're not already."

STILL MORE:

Michael, what is your relationship with the site your name links to (you don't appear to be listed there at all). D.

MORE:

Michael,

I'm just curious, do you think Craig's speech at the Berkeley commencement was appropriate?

Delia

P.S. I tend to agree with Dave -- this is not something you do at commencement (you do have a captive audience there -- people pretty much have to be there -- and not doing this sort of thing seems to be just basic respect).

P.P.S. I think places like Facebook and Twitter are the same (people trust you not to do this sort of thing). D.

STILL MORE: (comment-126231606)

didn't people already tell you that was a no-no (aka spamming)? or was that on Tweeter? or the Berkeley commencement? or all of those...

here is a reminder if you've forgotten:

Dave:"I stopped paying attention somewhere in the middle and then for some reason my ears perked up when his speech became a political rally cry, but it was boring nonetheless."

(http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/05/the-reviews-are.html)

Delia

P.S. this blog is a much more fair place for something like that (the vast majority of your readers would probably happily listen to whatever you'd like to say... political rally cry or not... and the few that *have* to read it for some reason or other don't have much choice in the matter...) D.

EVEN MORE:

Garrett:

*Issues* raised? Again, it's a cut-and-paste-operation -- nothing original that I can see...

Looks like propaganda to me (always one-sided; devoid of analysis) and I have no doubt that some of these people/organizations would be willing to pay for this sort of thing.

I don't know that he *does* get paid, of course -- it is just my suspicion.

Delia

MORE:

Jim,

I'm at a loss as to what could you possibly find insightful about this blog -- it's a copy-and-paste-job when it comes to any serious issues. No analysis to speak of -- I've often wondered if Craig gets paid by some of the people/organizations he promotes on his blog.

Delia

...
... looks like this guy is just buttering him up...

confidential sources

MORE:

re: “One nuance, remember, is that if a reporter changes his assessment from “mostly confident in X” to “less confident in X” or “no longer confident in X” does that mean that the first statement is wrong?”

That’s the risk they take when they choose to use confidential sources (they can’t break their promise, they would have never gotten that info if they would not have agreed to confidentiality). If you are talking about regular sources, there are such things as retractions (if they believe their prior report was in error).

re: “Why doesn’t every news organization have a wiki for every fact that they know (going forward…)?

for many good reasons, I suspect… (not divulging the info to competitors is the first that comes to mind)

Delia

STILL MORE:

re: “And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.”

–> I think this is *potentially* conspiracy to deceive the public (but just… potentially…) D.

Jon, I think this was the real problem and a database that tracks errors couldn’t expose confidential sources any more than ABS can just came out and do it now (if it wants to still use confidential sources in the future).

Delia

MORE:

Having an error database seems like a good idea; it could also include things like “we are working on a similar report” etc. but I’m not sure how it would work from the reader’s side: would you be searching at different times for errors in an article you read in a continuously changing database because you had a hunch an error might have been there? it seems to me that placing an update note at the top of the article from the time when an error is detected and giving the readers the option to sign up for email updates if they would like to be informed if and when any error would go into the database would be more user-friendly; I suppose you could charge a small fee for the service if *really* needed.

Delia

P.S. But this would not have prevented the major problem in the situation we are talking about, would it? D.

EVEN MORE:

here is the part I find most important:

“And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.”

–> I think this is *potentially* conspiracy to deceive the public (but just… potentially…) D.

MORE:

re: “If these events occurred the way Ross says they did — and if ABC has done sufficient homework to ensure that they were not part of a scheme to manipulate the network — then ABC would be justified in not revealing the the sources’ names now.”

The sources were confidential: they spoke to ABC on *this condition*. Whether or not ABC did their homework is irrelevant to whether or not ABC should break its promise (oral contract?) to those they regarded as sources.

Again, the courts could expose the identity of the sources if it was indeed conspiracy to deceive the public.

Delia

STILL MORE:

“If a journalist can not distinguish between a source, and someone who is trying to manufacture propaganda, then it must be left to the courts.” –> this appears to have been the case, ABC honestly (and not incompetently) thought those were credible corroborating sources.

Delia

P.S. The identity of “the sources” can be obtained through legal means without compromising ABC’s ability of using trustworthy confidential sources in the future. In the mean time, this would send the right message to those would be dishonest future “sources”: the courts will expose your identity if you use confidentiality for nefarious reasons. D.

EVEN MORE:

Alexandra,

re: “These questions must be answered and let the chips fall as they may.”

I think we should step back and choose the alternative that renders us better off. There is always a possibility to game the system, whether the source is confidential or not. And I think the consequences I am offering are probable, not just possible. No sources — confidential or not — can game the system *with impunity* unless they are allowed to do that. Doesn’t mean the investigation should be stopped — there should be legal means of getting the identity of the sources if this was indeed conspiracy to deceive the public.

Delia

MORE:

Craig,

True, but should ABC be required to forgo trustworthy confidential sources in the future in order to get to the bottom of this *one* story, even if a very important one?

Delia

P.S. you can also look at it from the public interest POV: are we all better off getting to the bottom of *this* story (and maybe a few others in the same category) and forgoing a lot more trustworthy confidential information in the future or are we better of accepting such isolated incidents of unfortunate duping as the trade off for continuing to get useful confidential info? D.

....

I would think quite a few trustworthy sources would decline to provide info you cannot get any other way if they saw you exposed someone else's identity, even if well deserved. D.

is Dan going to answer?

STILL MORE:

John, I think he *is* suggesting a “solution”: stop self-serving baseless pontification.

This is what I’m getting from the following and this is what Seth has been saying for a very long time.

” I’ve noticed that the business-model of A-listers is to tell other people to change their business-model (”Everything You Know Is Wrong! It’s A New Era!”). Except the A-listers can profit whether or not their advice is good or bad, right or wrong - and hence, sometimes can be downright hostile to rigorous analysis (present company excepted, of course). But the actual numbers (when one can find them ) are nowhere near as supportive as the breezy pontification.” (July 31st, 2008 at 5:47 am)

EVEN MORE:

Seth is pointing out obvious fundamental flaws in the arguments. That doesn’t make him perfect, of course — just the voice of reason.

e.g.

Dan: The chance to get *something* is not much of a risk.

Seth: To the contrary, you have to hire a web person, deal with server hosting and bandwidth issues, that all costs money. It’s not zero-vs-positive. There’s quite a risk of negative.

and on and on…

Delia

STILL MORE: good luck, Seth! It looks like you've got Jon backing you up, also... so I shouldn't be too badly missed:)

Delia

P.S. If you ever get Dan to really answer, it would be interesting to hear it -- otherwise, it just feels like running in circles... D.

EVEN MORE:

a milder way to ask the core questions Seth is asking — not that he would *need* to ask them milder — might be:

Dan,

#1. what are the “obvious ways” (that escape Seth and me, at a minimum) of breaking even? (you were implying at least breaking even is a given)

#2. what would it take for you — what facts — to conclude that there would be a significant risk of not getting the advertising revenue needed even in the long run ? (and just how long a view are you taking? it *cannot* be …. forever…)

Delia

P.S. I can see an argument that even if you loose some money by opening the archives there would be positive externalities that would at least compensate for that but Seth is correct that you (or anybody else talking authoritatively on these issues) need to” show your work” (the concrete rational steps that bring you to your conclusion) or acknowledge that it’s just not a well founded guess… it may be a hope… or something else… D.

MORE:

re: ““If we take 3 gills of pixie-powder and add it to 5 drams of fairy-dust, it’ll be enough for a unicorn in a magic kingdom”. LOL

you are getting to be funny, Seth:) — haven’t noticed that side of you.

Delia

P.S. BTW, I can use some back-up on Craig Newmark’s blog (a post referring to what seems like Dan’s rosy presentation of the situation); thanks! D.

re: http://onlinejournalismblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-dan-going-to-answer.html

Dan,

It sounds all nice and fluffy... but I wonder if you see any real issues with it.

The sort of problems Seth keeps throwing at you on your blog come to mind: is it mostly hype? it is largely smoking mirrors allowing the few to profit and the many to be exploited?

If Seth is correct, doesn't sound like much progress, does it?

Delia

P.S. In the few years I've been reading your blog I haven't seen you directly address the problems he constantly brings up... I've often wondered why...D

strive to be a researcher (not a journalist...)

I'm not sure if this is what Jon meant, but a true researcher (not the kind that gets paid to look up things so that *others* can use them... the term seems a misnomer in such circumstances) is much more than just a journalist. There are lousy researchers and there are great journalists, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that doing serious research and doing serious journalism are just not at the same level, although these are both useful endeavors. Striving to be a true researcher, as opposed to a journalist, is a higher goal.

Delia

P.S.And I agree with Seth... dumping the whole analysis process in the lap of the readers because the journalist just can't be perfectly objective sounds like a copout to me... and the readers truly don't have the time to do your job for you :) -- (I don't mean *you*, in particular...) D.

Public journalism and citizen journalism

Jon,

Some people (French) thought the two concepts were pretty much the same, that “citizen journalism” is just “public journalism” in the internet age… I suppose not particularly flatering to Jay:)

Delia

P.S. Here is a translation I did for Jay (and his readers) back in 2006:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/11/na_mrpbl.html#comment28646

P.P.S. his blog was pretty decent in terms of topics, just a bit much to take on the personal level (way too much pointless bickering…) D.

(Wikipedia) Jimmy Wales desirves some respect

STILL MORE: (9th comment)

I'd have to see that, Seth...

Delia

P.S. can you please email me the "early history of Wikipedia" you talk about (hopefully you have it in a relatively compact form, but anything under 100 pages I'd take a look at) D.

EVEN MORE: (7th comment)

How much time do you think he has spent on this project by now? what if he would have spent in on Bomis-the-next-generation instead and forgot about Wikipedia altogether? that would have been the expected thing to do when he figured it wasn't going to be a financial success, no?

Delia

P.S. and I still think he could have gotten *something* for it if he would have sold it; also why not switch back to for-profit once it became clear that Wikipedia was valuable? (all he would have had to do is tell people he needed to collect some fees to pay the bills and then refused to disclose the profits -- nothing stopped Craig from doing that...); as far as I can see Jimmy has handled it with much more honesty and deserves respect for it... D.

MORE: (5th comment)

He *could* have monetized it, Seth -- nothing would have stopped him from putting ads on it, for instance. Dumping it would have meant selling it, as far as I see it (selling it to the highest bidder while it was still a for profit). He didn't do that -- he made it a non-profit instead (the opposite of what Craig did with craigslist)

Delia

P.S. And you *did* say it, Seth...

re: "And remember what fuels the value of those speaking engagements. That's you-Yes-YOU! Now, don't you want to buy him a jet too?"

...
Seth, (3rd comment)

Jimmy is obviously no saint but I doubt he is nearly as bad as you make him out to be...

I mean, if you would have shown that the I-made-my-fortune-on-the-stock-market claim was bull, I would have definitely listened; if you would have shown that he made a fortune from Bomis and has been hiding this, I would have listened but... earning honoraria as side benefit to having spent a huge amount of his own time on helping build Wikipedia is a real problem?

He could have tried to monetize Wikipedia and milk it for all it was worth or dump it if it wouldn't have worked out -- He *didn't* do this and I think he deserves respect for it (whatever his other failings may be...)

Delia