Slashdot is also a good example of liberal bias--I'm liberal myself, but some of the editorials make me wince: they seem occasionally to
ignore evidence contrary to accepted dogma (as opposed to, say, not understanding it or not knowing about it--or, better, yet, methodically discrediting it). They're also a good source of invective against Microsoft, should you ever need one. :-) I do like the site, though, don't get me wrong.
One could say the same (or the exact opposite) about many news sources. In any case, the great thing about Slashdot isn't the article or the editorial, it's the comments. And those are a free for all-- in any anti-MS article, over half of the highly-moderated comments will be a defense of MS (even if, in that particular case, MS's behavior might be difficult to defend.)
- Achieving the front page on Slashdot.org is to technology what the front page of the Wall Street Journal is to business and finance. Except that the Wall Street Journal usually does some sort of fact checking and retracts egregious errors it makes.
While this is quite funny and not all that inaccurate, it could use a rewrite to be in a
neutral point of view. --
BlckKnght
This article is cool, id never heard of geekizoid or
the 'anti slashdot' movement. Thanks for adding 'naked
and petrified' back in.
As for the bias, its not so much 'liberal' as 'geek',
which is some kind of two headed bastard baby monster
when a libertarian had sex with phyllis schlafly and
was raised in the suburbs.
And BlckKnght, maybe you should write the thing about
fact checking and other differences between slashdot
and 'real' news organizations. Now that the article
has been revised by a non-slashdroid to be more balanced
it just doesnt need me to give it an iconoclast kick in the face.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)