Groklaw shutting down in May
Posted Apr 10, 2011 21:24 UTC (Sun) by Blaisorblade
In reply to: Groklaw shutting down in May
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May
I first think that past attacks on "Pamela Jones" justify why she wanted to stay anonymous:
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.
to post comments)