Los Angeles Times Publishes First Wikitorial Page
The L.A. Times is starting a fascinating and innovative concept: “wikitorials.” If you are unfamiliar with wikis, and/or what a wikitorial would be, you can read the New York Times article about the concept. The first one is already up. (Via L.A. Observed.) You can go edit it here.
If you do, try to say something constructive. This is something we want to encourage.
Michael Kinsley deserves a lot of credit for this bold experiment in interactivity. Together with the paper’s new blog, I’d like to think the paper is ushering in a new era of communication with its readers. Bloggers need to stand up and recognize what a courageous decision this is for a stodgy old newspaper like The Times.
P.S. I haven’t even had time to read the actual editorial (or wikitorial) itself. I won’t be surprised if it’s the usual knee-jerk nonsense. If so, it really doesn’t matter. The experiment is a great idea.
UPDATE 6-19-05: A commenter notes that the wikitorial has been pulled due to repeated abuse. Such is the life of the Internet . . .
I hate to be negative, Pat, but I really don’t agree with you here. I think this is a massive waste of time and energy. The purpose of collaborative sites is to produce consensus. Nobody’s ever going to see a consensus on something like this. The “editorial” is just going to get vandalized and vandalized until nobody gives a damn about repairing it any more. At one point in the past few hours, it said that Terri Schiavo had been raped by her parents!
The strength of America lies in the diversity of opinions of her people. We don’t need group writing exercises to help us express them. That sort of nonsense is just a distraction.
Jeff Harrell (a5b150) — 6/18/2005 @ 9:53 amThe Wiki has changed dramatically overnight — at least the anti-war one has. Yesterday it was a 6th-grade anti-war rant, now it’s a fairly well-written anti-war rant.
The pro-war side is barely an outline, and not a good one at that. Surely we can do better?
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 6/18/2005 @ 10:07 amSee what I mean? I would be heartbroken if the great minds of the conservative blogosphere wasted their time on this.
(Okay, that’ll be my last negative comment today. For a while, anyway. Maybe.)
Jeff Harrell (a5b150) — 6/18/2005 @ 10:44 amIt is a waste of time.
End of story.
Flap (f221c5) — 6/18/2005 @ 10:53 amLA Times: Wikitorial
Michael Kinsley is trying.
Patterico think s it is OK.
But, not good enough for Flap. Who would waste their time?
A good start for the Los Angeles Times: balanced/reporting coverage, trackbacks, and did I mention balanced/reporting coverage.
…
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (d00f28) — 6/18/2005 @ 11:05 amThis is their lame attempt to incorporate some non-liberal views into the liberal LA Times somehow. As luck would have it, the conservative side of the debate is cornered into this scatter-brained mishmash of drive-by comments. The paper will continue to publish letters written by liberal readers.
I’m glad we have a special election coming soon. That means more outrageous attacks on the Governor should be coming soon. It is enjoyable watching how LA Times consistently and repetitively insinuates that education spending is being drastically cut (overall and per-student), while it has increased every year.
shredstar (91b3b2) — 6/18/2005 @ 1:03 pmIf there are good pro-war points, go put ’em in there! And Jeff — I saw the bit about Terri Schiavo’s parents. It was ridiculous, but it didn’t last long.
I’m a little agnostic on Wikis generally, but I am a big fan of Big Media interacting with its readers. I’m surprised that more don’t agree. Don’t focus on the content; I didn’t even read it. That’s beside the point. Again, it’s all about the experiment.
Patterico (756436) — 6/18/2005 @ 3:22 pm“This is their lame attempt to incorporate some non-liberal views into the liberal LA Times somehow.”
Its a rather perfect counter to their critics. “don’t like what we wrote? rewrite it!”
actus (3be069) — 6/18/2005 @ 10:24 pmJust checked, at 3:40 EDT on Sunday the Wikitorial had already been pulled because of abuse by commentators.
Cecil (1c2fb1) — 6/19/2005 @ 12:43 pm[…] Last year, when Michael Kinsley began an experiment with interactive editorials, or “wikitorials,” I supported the effort. When the first one was defaced by pornography, many declared the experiment a failure — but I believed that it had been a success, just because the paper had the guts to undertake it. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Hiltzik’s Blog Suspension Should Not End the L.A. Times’s Interactivity with Readers (421107) — 4/20/2006 @ 6:22 pm