Groklaw shutting down in May [LWN.net]

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 13:33 UTC (Sun) by spaetz (guest, #32870)
In reply to: Groklaw shutting down in May by endecotp
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May

> 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?

Hehe, that would be nice indeed.

to post comments

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 16:01 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (4 responses)

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.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 21:24 UTC (Sun) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link] (2 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 10, 2011 22:06 UTC (Sun) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (8 responses)

> 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?

There is a bit of a difference between large entities like broadcasters and newspapers, where the reputation of the entity as a whole lends some value (or not) to the individual articles, and a website that appears from nowhere and seems to deliberately make it difficult to establish who is behind it and what their prior reputation might have been.

> 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.

"Well written" can mean spelled correctly, factually correct, etc; for those attributes it's not necessary to know who wrote it. But the important issues with stories like SCO is "am I being told everything?", "do others have another interpretation of that?", etc. To be able to judge that sort of thing, we can look at the author's background and try to get a first-hand impression of what sort of person they are.

Just look at all the posts on LWN where people ask, "Dear Florian, please tell us who pays you so that I can decide whether to believe what you have written on your blog." I think that's a legitimate question to ask, and I also ask it of Groklaw.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 0:59 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link] (7 responses)

There is a bit of a difference between large entities like broadcasters and newspapers, where the reputation of the entity as a whole lends some value (or not) to the individual articles, and a website that appears from nowhere and seems to deliberately make it difficult to establish who is behind it and what their prior reputation might have been.

Said "large entities" started out small and unknown until they got known and trusted. Just like, say, LWN or Groklaw. Your whole argument might have had some traction way back before it was groklaw.net, by now it has none whatsoever. Get over it, PJ is much more credible (and important) than you will ever be.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 11:54 UTC (Mon) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (6 responses)

> Said "large entities" started out small and unknown until
> they got known and trusted.

True. The issue is that, for me, an anonymous site like Groklaw fails to make that transition from "small and unknown" to "trusted" because of its anonymity.

> Get over it, PJ is much more credible (and important) than you will
> ever be.

My unimportance, present or future, is not the issue.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 12:24 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (3 responses)

So "endecotp" == "FlorianMuller" sockpuppet account?

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 12:40 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

Well, the history is longer and more technical than I'd expect from a FM sockpuppet, so it's likely I was wrong.

Whose importance is being compared to PJ's aside from FM's? I guess that's the kernel of what I'm trying to grok.

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 18:53 UTC (Mon) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (1 responses)

> So "endecotp" == "FlorianMuller" sockpuppet account?

Don't be ridiculous. (My name is Phil Endecott. Have you googled me yet?)

All I did was note that Groklaw's anonymity had made me uncomfortable; look at the reaction! It's like a sort of "reds under the beds" paranoia - if someone doesn't agree 100% with the group-think, they must be secretly working for the other side. Come on people, get a grip!

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 11, 2011 19:06 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

> My name is Phil Endecott. Have you googled me yet?

Nope; I looked for endecotp on lwn after the initial post, hence the second. Like I noted, the trigger was "my unimportance"; as far as I could tell, it was FM vs PJ, thus it looked like you were replying as FM, which seemed quite odd.

> It's like a sort of "reds under the beds" paranoia - if someone doesn't agree 100% with the group-think, they must be secretly working for the other side. Come on people, get a grip!

I agree.

I rather find the whole thing interesting as both sides go back and forth on the importance of person (who someone is and the people and organizations funding them) versus taking the argument itself without the person. :)

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 13, 2011 11:09 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Right. As $BIG_NEWSPAPER isn't anonymous in practice (or do you claim to know each and every reporter who writes for yours by name and reputation?)...

Groklaw shutting down in May

Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:57 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

I apologize, I misread your name as FlorianMueller somehow.