> Groklaw always made me feel uncomfortable, and a comparison with LWN shows why:
> - We know who writes LWN because they use their real names, and many of us will have met them in person or in other contexts;
Why do you need to meet someone in order to make use of the information and analyses they provide?
You don't listen to the CNN or BBC because you don't know the real name of the news editor? Really? Do you read "The Economist"? They don't even print the author's names for an article.
This is an argument that I find a bit hard to believe. If an article is well written or not is not something that depends on if someone has actually met that person in real life.
> - We can see where the money comes from.
(Looking at you guest status, not from you :-P)
While I don't suspect LWN of anything like that, do you really know that? Do you know that RedHat is not giving John 10k$ per year? As I said, it's unlikely, but "can you see" that?
I tend to rate trustworthyness on whether someone backs up claims with checkable facts. And groklaw provided me with transcripts from court hearings that I would otherwise find summarized by some reporter with a hidden agenda in some news outlet.
> In contrast, Groklaw appeared to have significant resources behind it (i.e. it didn't seem to be a spare-time operation) yet we had no idea who was paying for those resources.
Right could be. But why do you care, even if the whole of IBM's legal department is behind groklaw? We take all online articles that we read with a grain of salt and healthy scepticism anyway, don't we?
>Hopefully, whatever comes along to fill the gap left by Groklaw's departure will be set up rather differently. Maybe LWN should find a friendly paralegal and start a "legal" page?