△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

LA Times wikitorial makes a hasty departure

As newspapers experiment with blogs and podcasts, it must have seemed like a good idea to the editors of the Los Angeles Times to see if another element of the social software suite could be put to good use. The notion of a wiki for newspapers isn’t new; after all, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has been giving it a go with Wikinews. But the Times didn’t offer up a citizen journalism effort. Instead, they gave readers the opportunity to collaborate on editorials.

Dubbed the Wikitorial, the idea attracted some skeptical attention. Most wondered how editorials—opinions by nature—could be handed over to community control without inviting those with deep-set feelings to battle over control. Evidently, that’s exactly what happened. Within just a couple short days of launching the experiment, the Times has pulled it down, leaving only this in its place:

Where is the wikitorial?

Unfortunately, we have had to remove this feature, at least temporarily, because a few readers were flooding the site with inappropriate material.

Thanks and apologies to the thousands of people who logged on in the right spirit.

I looked at the Wikitorial launch page, while it was still available, only yesterday, and even then had trouble detecting what the editors thought the “right spirit” was. There’s no telling for sure what caused the Times to withdraw the page. It was Slashdotted, for one thing, but I suspect it had more to do with idealogues on both sides of an issue one-upping each other in less-than-subtle ways. The first editorial open on the wiki, near as I can figure out, was about the US presence in Iraq. I can just imagine how people polarized on the issue used the wiki as a battle ground.

It’s not unusual. Even Wikipedia is subject to such nonsense. Recently, somebody with an agenda tried to rewrite history by removing Dave Winer’s name from the entry on the development of podcasting. This kind of thing is to be expected, and the Wikipedia community generally acts to correct such partisan editing. Besides, as Jon Udell notes,

“Some knowledge is purely factual, but much is socially constructed and therefore inevitably prone to bias and dispute. Wikipedia’s greatest innovation is arguably the framework it provides to mediate the social construction of knowledge, advocate for neutrality, accommodate dispute, and offer a path to its negotiated resolution.”

But how could anybody expect anything but partisanship in a wiki based on newspaper editorials?

Ross Mayfield of SocialText thought the notion could have worked with branching pages so each side of an issue could rewrite their own version of the editorial, but I doubt it would have worked. Invariably, one side would want to deface the other side’s arguments. In the end, editorials just don’t seem like a great category for a public wiki.

So much has been made of the Times wiki that it’ll be particularly interesting to see if it returns in some form or another. I’ll have an update if it does.

Comments
  • 1.I never got a chance to check out the LA Times wikitorial, but a wiki does not seem to be the appropriate tool for what they intended. They should have known from the beginning that starting with an editorial regarding the war in Iraq would not engender a collaborative project. Instead, they should have used a broader category, such as US foreign policy regarding non-democratic states, or something more academic.

    Britt | June 2005

  • 2.As far as the "re-writing of Dave Winer and podcasting" goes, you may want to check your facts.

    Dan100 | June 2005 | UK

Comment Form

« Back