4 ms·

I think it's the same when we ship beta software to users and then expect the first batch to essentially debug it — then comes the proverbial ".1" patch which f

I think it's the same when we ship beta software to users and then expect the first batch to essentially debug it — then comes the proverbial ".1" patch which fixes most glaring issues. (as if they weren't obvious in the first place) Now why do we do that in software? because "agile", cost, "let's ship and risk breaking some things and see what happens? We'll fix things later in some update, on a need-to basis" Well I think journalism has gone the same road: "let's publish first and risk breaking some truths and see what happens? We'll fix things later in some update, on a need-to basis" Can't really blame the business entities themselves. I wholeheartedly agree with GP though, there definitely needs to be more regulation and parent's point is one of the most salient target for that — it's disingenuous at best to silently update/remove, not to mention actually false from a documentation standpoint, it skews history basically. Very dystopian. News articles should be versioned exactly like git, we should be able to diff each public update.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
trickstra 7y ago
Yes, but you can still find the .0 version in the github. I'd be totally OK if the news were on github and I could easily see how the article looked a while ago (extra credits for git blame feature).
davvolun 7y ago
It immediately irks me that I'm defending agile here, but part of the point of agile is that the developer doesn't really know what the end user needs, so it's, in theory, better to get a minimum viable product out that meets the user's need, then refine on subsequent releases, rather than spend years working on releasing something perfect that it turns out doesn't fill the user's need. From a similar perspective for journalism, I think there's an argument that can be made that it's better to get most of the information out right away, even if some of it is inaccurate, and then correct the inaccuracies later, rather than wait until every piece is confirmed and edited perfectly to release the information. Argument to extremes, think of a hurricane or volcano explosion.
- stoicShell 7y ago
  You make great points and I agree with your take on agile — I actually mentioned "cost" to indicate that reality was deviating from the 'ideal' agile approach, when it stops being "the right thing to do" — buggy, etc. — because you're trying to meet some arbitrary deadline or favor marketing, please mgmt, etc. Likewise, I think it's fair to assume the economic competition between news outlets may push some to be too aggressive in shipping fast, too fast. And you know what, deep down I think it's OK, as long as you don't falsely advertise what you're doing. "We want this <content> (whether code, news) in the hands of our customers asap, so we're releasing it now; but be aware it's not 100% guaranteed until scrutinized by the crowd and corrected accordingly." I'd love to have a choice between some "fast news shippers" and some "slow, vetted pieces". I think there's room for both and everything in between. Just don't be disingenuous about it, and if it takes regulation to enforce that, then so be it — every legitimately regulated activity pretty much brings it on themselves, give or take some political latency.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > From a similar perspective for journalism, I think there's an argument that can be made that it's better to get most of the information out right away, even if some of it is inaccurate, and then correct the inaccuracies later, rather than wait until every piece is confirmed and edited perfectly to release the information. Argument to extremes, think of a hurricane or volcano explosion. Following the argument to the same extreme, it's a bad idea to get out the information "there is a hurricane or volcano explosion due south of you" immediately, and to wait until the flight north begins to issue the correction "actually, it's due north of you."
  - davvolun 7y ago
    But I don't think you would disagree the following is worthwhile: "There is a hurricane, and we're hearing initial, unconfirmed reports that it's to the south. We want to stress these are unconfirmed at this time, etc etc" Which is something that would traditionally be broadcast in an emergency. Obviously, we're really talking about an extreme hypothetical, but as long as it's clear the information may not be complete or accurate at the time of reading, I see no problem (as long as it is eventually accurate).
EpicEng 7y ago
>Can't really blame the business entities themselves. Why not? Why is it acceptable that the profit motive trump everything else? These people play a critical role in our society. Obviously they have to stay in business, but I'm not going to give them a pass on foregoing their duty just because they want to make more money.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

trickstra 7y ago

Yes, but you can still find the .0 version in the github. I'd be totally OK if the news were on github and I could easily see how the article looked a while ago (extra credits for git blame feature).

davvolun 7y ago

It immediately irks me that I'm defending agile here, but part of the point of agile is that the developer doesn't really know what the end user needs, so it's, in theory, better to get a minimum viable product out that meets the user's need, then refine on subsequent releases, rather than spend years working on releasing something perfect that it turns out doesn't fill the user's need. From a similar perspective for journalism, I think there's an argument that can be made that it's better to get most of the information out right away, even if some of it is inaccurate, and then correct the inaccuracies later, rather than wait until every piece is confirmed and edited perfectly to release the information. Argument to extremes, think of a hurricane or volcano explosion.

stoicShell 7y ago
You make great points and I agree with your take on agile — I actually mentioned "cost" to indicate that reality was deviating from the 'ideal' agile approach, when it stops being "the right thing to do" — buggy, etc. — because you're trying to meet some arbitrary deadline or favor marketing, please mgmt, etc. Likewise, I think it's fair to assume the economic competition between news outlets may push some to be too aggressive in shipping fast, too fast. And you know what, deep down I think it's OK, as long as you don't falsely advertise what you're doing. "We want this <content> (whether code, news) in the hands of our customers asap, so we're releasing it now; but be aware it's not 100% guaranteed until scrutinized by the crowd and corrected accordingly." I'd love to have a choice between some "fast news shippers" and some "slow, vetted pieces". I think there's room for both and everything in between. Just don't be disingenuous about it, and if it takes regulation to enforce that, then so be it — every legitimately regulated activity pretty much brings it on themselves, give or take some political latency.
JadeNB 7y ago
> From a similar perspective for journalism, I think there's an argument that can be made that it's better to get most of the information out right away, even if some of it is inaccurate, and then correct the inaccuracies later, rather than wait until every piece is confirmed and edited perfectly to release the information. Argument to extremes, think of a hurricane or volcano explosion. Following the argument to the same extreme, it's a bad idea to get out the information "there is a hurricane or volcano explosion due south of you" immediately, and to wait until the flight north begins to issue the correction "actually, it's due north of you."
- davvolun 7y ago
  But I don't think you would disagree the following is worthwhile: "There is a hurricane, and we're hearing initial, unconfirmed reports that it's to the south. We want to stress these are unconfirmed at this time, etc etc" Which is something that would traditionally be broadcast in an emergency. Obviously, we're really talking about an extreme hypothetical, but as long as it's clear the information may not be complete or accurate at the time of reading, I see no problem (as long as it is eventually accurate).

EpicEng 7y ago

>Can't really blame the business entities themselves. Why not? Why is it acceptable that the profit motive trump everything else? These people play a critical role in our society. Obviously they have to stay in business, but I'm not going to give them a pass on foregoing their duty just because they want to make more money.