Groklaw shutting down in May [LWN.net]

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 16:01 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
In reply to: Groklaw shutting down in May by spaetz
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May

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.

The Economist is a pretty interesting example in that few names are given and many of those are pseudonyms. I would imagine that the authors of some articles, and almost certainly the sources in such articles, would be in personal danger if their names were made public.

All anyone needs to consider when reading an opinion is whether that opinion is convincing such that they might agree with it, and whether the person writing that opinion has any agenda that would benefit them but not the reader upon getting the reader's agreement or support. It's all too easy to say - hence it is written frequently in arguments on the Internet - that an anonymous opinion counts for nothing, but a convincing argument doesn't need a name to be convincing, and a signature doesn't necessarily show the skeletons in someone's closet.

(Log in to post comments)

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 21:24 UTC (Sun) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]

I first think that past attacks on "Pamela Jones" justify why she wanted to stay anonymous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Media_controversy

All anyone needs to consider when reading an opinion is whether that opinion is convincing such that they might agree with it, and whether the person writing that opinion has any agenda that would benefit them but not the reader upon getting the reader's agreement or support.

I don't agree with your reasoning, even if I guess I would tentatively agree about Groklaw (I read just mentions of it through LWN, and now on Wikipedia).
When I read media coverage, I want to be able to rely on it and the facts it gives, and to leave verification to others, for practical reasons, unless I'm deeply interested on the subject. A convincing argument might be flawed in unobvious ways, or in ways only apparent to other experts. A reputable source might still be mistaken, but it's less likely (if reputation was earnestly gained). Her opinion might still be partial, but I believe a reputable source should declare her partiality, allowing the reader to compare sources having opposite points of view.

For law-related issues, this is maybe a bigger concern, since common sense and laws, and their application, appear to be often at variance.

Moreover, reading and judging takes time. In this era of information overflow, you need heuristics to filter, like the source, or the language. U wudnt read me if I rot like this, would you*? Not (only) because it's harder to understand, but because misspelled English has _some correlation_ with poor thinking. Yet, this might lead to missing an informative opinion.

So, what opinion I have of Groklaw? I can judge myself that LWN is an accurate and reputable source, and they often refer to Groklaw as another such source; similar opinions appear on Wikipedia, thus I would consider Groklaw worth reading. Finally, I never considered SCO to have any real point.

* I'm emulating misspelled English: I'm not a native speaker, therefore it's harder for me.

It's all too easy to say - hence it is written frequently in arguments on the Internet - that an anonymous opinion counts for nothing, but a convincing argument doesn't need a name to be convincing, and a signature doesn't necessarily show the skeletons in someone's closet.

Given a traceable identity, it is at least possible (in principle, and often in practice) to discover any such skeletons.

However, I care for a reputable source, that doesn't need to be a person's name.
I would guess The Economist to be a reputable source, though I never investigated the issue. For journals, it's often easier to investigate the editors and its interest. For instance, if I were a U.S. Democrat I would probably not rely on Fox News as my primary information source.

Reputation and anonymity

Posted Apr 11, 2011 8:52 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

When I read media coverage, I want to be able to rely on it and the facts it gives, and to leave verification to others, for practical reasons, unless I'm deeply interested on the subject. A convincing argument might be flawed in unobvious ways, or in ways only apparent to other experts. A reputable source might still be mistaken, but it's less likely (if reputation was earnestly gained). Her opinion might still be partial, but I believe a reputable source should declare her partiality, allowing the reader to compare sources having opposite points of view.

Sure, a reputation can be a useful thing, but it's not the only thing. Moreover, someone who has a reputation in one area might try and leverage that reputation in another area - you see this quite a bit with journalists - but that doesn't mean that they're qualified or that the reputation is applicable in that other area. I agree that putting a name against an opinion makes it easier to filter out erroneous opinions, but that doesn't mean that an anonymous opinion should have no weight. Indeed, in some areas (whistle-blowing, for example) it should perhaps carry more weight.

So, what opinion I have of Groklaw? I can judge myself that LWN is an accurate and reputable source, and they often refer to Groklaw as another such source; similar opinions appear on Wikipedia, thus I would consider Groklaw worth reading.

And you have reached that conclusion by assessing the quality of the information and by sampling different sources, which is something a reputation might reduce the need for, but it shouldn't eliminate such a need or desire.

I would guess The Economist to be a reputable source, though I never investigated the issue.

Again, there are some interesting observations to be made. Although The Economist can be quite predictable (it is The Economist, after all), there are times when it has published a position and then had to admit that it was (as far as its contributors are concerned) wrong, most notably around the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now I accept that with an anonymous person, the "track record" of the commentator would not be known - they might claim to have been against the Iraq invasion all along, for example - but I think it is possible to treat all such commentators as individuals and ignore notions of hypocrisy (which only applies to concurrently contradicting positions, of course) while still digesting what people have to say.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 18:25 UTC (Mon) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link]

"I read just mentions of it through LWN, and now on Wikipedia"

Maybe you should have take a look before saying:

"When I read media coverage, I want to be able to rely on it and the facts it gives, and to leave verification to others, for practical reasons, unless I'm deeply interested on the subject.!"

because if Groklaw gives you one thing it's LOTS of facts! All of them referenced, linked etc etc

With so much easily verifiable information somebody would have noticed if she'd "doctored the records" so to speak.

The rest of it was her personal opinion, and clearly stated as such, with which you might agree or not. For that I don't need to know their real name, heck most of the time we don't know who's behind a story, it doesn't matter, I can make up my own mind if I agree or not, if I should be investigating more or am just happy to read the summary.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 21:41 UTC (Mon) by dannyobrien (subscriber, #25583) [Link]

The Economist is a pretty interesting example in that few names are given and many of those are pseudonyms. I would imagine that the authors of some articles, and almost certainly the sources in such articles, would be in personal danger if their names were made public.

For the record, the Economist rarely runs a by-lined piece. Almost all of its articles are written anonymously.

The principle reason is that they are written collectively by the Economist's editorial staff, not because the authors would be in danger (and sources can remain anonymous without authors being anonymous).

It can be quite difficult to discover who the editorial staff are. (It's less true now, but for many years the Economist authors I knew were graduates fresh out of Oxford or Cambridge.)

I think it's entirely fair to be distrustful of something because it comes from a completely anonymous source, but names are really just pseudonyms to which we gradually attach a reputation. I have a pretty clear idea of how much I would trust the Economist, PJ, Dan Lyons (and Dan Lyons when he is writing as Fake Steve Jobs) and Florian's opinion, none of which really come from some magical platonic "ground truth" of knowing the "real" person behind them.