I'm all for newspaper experimentation and I wish the LA Times well with its coming revamp of the editorial pages, but one idea sure sounds dubious (Editor's Note: To Our Readers).
Watch next week for the introduction of "wikitorials" — an online feature that will empower you to rewrite Los Angeles Times editorials.
Now this doesn't provide a whole lot of information on what they have planned, but I'm trying hard to imagine how they intend to make this work. Won't they simply be inviting their partisan readers to engage in an "
Edit War"? After all, editorials are supposed to have a point of view, with which many readers will undoubtedly and inevitably disagree.
Furthermore, aren't editorials supposed to have a "voice"? How do you accomplish this, do you want to accomplish this, in a "wikitorial"?
They almost certainly won't be trying to embrace Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which would be pretty boring, if they could get it to work for things that are supposed to have point of views.
Perhaps they'll have forking? One (or two?) base editorials, point/counterpoint style? One base editorial, many forks? Not exactly a wiki then, really.
Well, I guess we'll have to find out next week.
via Dan Gillmor
UPDATE 2255PT
Ross Mayfield has some thoughts on the subject (Wikitorials).
UPDATE 2305PT
Teleread is more excited than I (Wikitorials Coming from the Los Angeles Times—But, Wait, How About Wikens?).
UPDATE 2333PT
Political Animal has even more on this (The Future of Editorials?). Quoting the New York Times (Upheaval on Los Angeles Times Editorial Pages):
This week, the newspaper, will introduce an online feature called "wikitorials," as a way for readers to engage in an online dialogue with the paper. The model is based on "Wikipedia," the Web's free-content encyclopedia that is edited by online contributors.
"We'll have some editorials where you can go online and edit an editorial to your satisfaction," Mr. Martinez said. "We are going to do that with selected editorials initially. We don't know how this is going to turn out. It's all about finding new ways to allow readers to interact with us in the age of the Web."
Hmmm... I'm not sure they get it. When you edit a Wiki you're not really editing it to your satisfaction, you're editing it to the satisfaction of everyone who reads the Wiki subsequently. Cuz if you don't, they'll edit it to
their satisfaction.
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. Alex Krupp on June 13, 2005 01:17 AM writes...
Perhaps they'll have forking? One (or two?) base editorials, point/counterpoint style? One base editorial, many forks? Not exactly a wiki then, really.
Actually that is exactly what a node wiki is. This is the model that Everything2 uses, where you can make multiple nodes on a given subject that represent different points of view. That being said, it is still a stupid idea. It seems like they are purposely setting up a strawman to 'prove' that wikis don't work.
Permalink to Comment2. David H. Rothman on June 13, 2005 03:10 AM writes...
Hey, Ernie, give 'em a chance. The "real" wikis are constantly in a state of rewrite. If the LA Times is smart, it will offer people a choice of recent snapshots. And remember, the real point isn't just an end product. It's to get people involved--and for the L.A. Times to learn what its readers are thinking. For once, the dinos might be doing something right, unless, of course, as is possible, they're trying to show that wikis don't work. What happens will depend on the Times' intentions.
Note: I'd actually like newspapers to go further than the L.A. Time and provide reader-customized editions mixing regular news stories with opinionated rewrites (people could toggle between the two).
Anyway, thanks for the different viewpoint. Isn't that part of what wikis are all about?
- David
Permalink to Comment3. Ben Yates on June 15, 2005 12:53 AM writes...
What about user base? It seems unlikely that the Times' Wikitorials will have enough users for trolling and grafitti to be cleared up quickly. The quickly-degraded environment will be like pre-Giuliani subways and nobody'll be inclined to write anything interesting. (I've rambled further in this post.)
Permalink to Comment