Comments on: How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:44:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: La prensa y los tiempos modernos « Telematica & Linux http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-943721 La prensa y los tiempos modernos « Telematica & Linux Wed, 13 May 2009 20:17:43 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-943721 <p>[...] en GigaOM a cuenta del artículo del pasado domingo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos [...]</p> [...] en GigaOM a cuenta del artículo del pasado domingo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos [...]

]]> By: A Slight Delay » Blog Archive » (Don’t) Stop the Presses! http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-920093 A Slight Delay » Blog Archive » (Don’t) Stop the Presses! Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:55:00 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-920093 <p>[...] Surowiecki has News You Can Lose. Finally, Gigaom’s Mathew Ingram writes perceptively about How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test, offering some insight in the process as to how and why the traditional news media have fallen [...]</p> [...] Surowiecki has News You Can Lose. Finally, Gigaom’s Mathew Ingram writes perceptively about How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test, offering some insight in the process as to how and why the traditional news media have fallen [...]

]]> By: How the WSJ failed the Web 2.0 test — mathewingram.com/work http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918857 How the WSJ failed the Web 2.0 test — mathewingram.com/work Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:24:03 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918857 <p>[...] the rest of this post at GigaOm [...]</p> [...] the rest of this post at GigaOm [...]

]]> By: jhn http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918735 jhn Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:33:52 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918735 <p>@les madras</p> <p>No, there is nothing to "spin." Google is right and the WSJ is wrong. Edge caching is available to anyone who can pay for it. That's the only kind of NN that Google has ever wanted--no <em>exclusive</em> deals.</p> @les madras

No, there is nothing to “spin.” Google is right and the WSJ is wrong. Edge caching is available to anyone who can pay for it. That’s the only kind of NN that Google has ever wanted–no exclusive deals.

]]> By: Linkdump 25 | ettf.net http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918564 Linkdump 25 | ettf.net Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:03:45 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918564 <p>[...] Gigaom reckons WSJ failed the Web 2.0 test [...]</p> [...] Gigaom reckons WSJ failed the Web 2.0 test [...]

]]> By: Críticas al WSJ y a la prensa por no aprovechar la riqueza de la red | Radiocable.com - Radio por Internet http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918450 Críticas al WSJ y a la prensa por no aprovechar la riqueza de la red | Radiocable.com - Radio por Internet Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:20:02 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918450 <p>[...] declaracion de Laurence Lessig, que era mencionado en la historia, corrigiendo esa interpretación. Matthew Ingram considera que este es un ejemplo perfecto de cómo la prensa tradicional sigue fallando a la hora entender el nuevo periodismo digital por no [...]</p> [...] declaracion de Laurence Lessig, que era mencionado en la historia, corrigiendo esa interpretación. Matthew Ingram considera que este es un ejemplo perfecto de cómo la prensa tradicional sigue fallando a la hora entender el nuevo periodismo digital por no [...]

]]> By: irina slutsky http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918448 irina slutsky Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:02:39 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918448 <p>i am so frustrated -- honestly, WSJ needs to be up on its game already! i just wish this transition wouldn't take so long. its clear that newspapers will not be on paper very soon and yet we still go on acting as if the physical paper is still a necessary part of the business. just like pretending that updating a story as the day goes on will make the story less PRISTINE or less TRUE. i kinda wanna dissect this specific situation do the gristle and know WHO there made the decision not to blog or update the story as information came in and see what the problem is at the WSJ -- i have worked two newspapers before things started falling apart and there is always one or two ppl making the final decision. so who was it who said don't touch the story?</p> i am so frustrated — honestly, WSJ needs to be up on its game already! i just wish this transition wouldn’t take so long. its clear that newspapers will not be on paper very soon and yet we still go on acting as if the physical paper is still a necessary part of the business. just like pretending that updating a story as the day goes on will make the story less PRISTINE or less TRUE. i kinda wanna dissect this specific situation do the gristle and know WHO there made the decision not to blog or update the story as information came in and see what the problem is at the WSJ — i have worked two newspapers before things started falling apart and there is always one or two ppl making the final decision. so who was it who said don’t touch the story?

]]> By: Los bloggers, el periodismo y la venta de humo | Juan Manuel Lucero http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918383 Los bloggers, el periodismo y la venta de humo | Juan Manuel Lucero Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:07:48 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918383 <p>[...] el WSJ en GigaOM a cuenta de su reciente artículo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos fundamentales [...]</p> [...] el WSJ en GigaOM a cuenta de su reciente artículo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos fundamentales [...]

]]> By: Mathew Ingram http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918381 Mathew Ingram Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:59:01 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918381 <p>Thanks for the comments, everyone. And to @Chris, I know that most newspapers don't take this approach -- I work for one. I'm trying to think (and talk) about what we <em>should</em> be doing, rather than what we are currently doing.</p> Thanks for the comments, everyone. And to @Chris, I know that most newspapers don’t take this approach — I work for one. I’m trying to think (and talk) about what we should be doing, rather than what we are currently doing.

]]> By: Andrew Golis » Blog Archive » links for 2008-12-17 http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918374 Andrew Golis » Blog Archive » links for 2008-12-17 Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:02:22 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918374 <p>[...] How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test This is a perfect example of, well beyond the economic modeling, newspapers are still slow to embrace the journalistic improvements that the web allows. This is just bad journalism, and the WSJ should be better than that. (tags: new.media newspaper journalism wsj gigaom) [...]</p> [...] How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test This is a perfect example of, well beyond the economic modeling, newspapers are still slow to embrace the journalistic improvements that the web allows. This is just bad journalism, and the WSJ should be better than that. (tags: new.media newspaper journalism wsj gigaom) [...]

]]> By: La prensa y los tiempos modernos » El Blog de Enrique Dans http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918355 La prensa y los tiempos modernos » El Blog de Enrique Dans Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:30:05 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918355 <p>[...] WSJ en GigaOM a cuenta de su reciente artículo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos fundamentales [...]</p> [...] WSJ en GigaOM a cuenta de su reciente artículo sobre Google y la neutralidad de la red, en “How the WSJ Failed the Web 2.0 Test”: que no actualizó la noticia cuando a las pocas horas aparecieron nuevos elementos fundamentales [...]

]]> By: Ala Kanye West: WSJ doesn’t care about Web 2.0! | BUZZ NEWSROOM http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918346 Ala Kanye West: WSJ doesn’t care about Web 2.0! | BUZZ NEWSROOM Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:12:12 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918346 <p>[...] about looking at “journalism,” broadly-speaking, as a process rather than an artifact. - from Gigaom Filed Under: TechTags: Rupert Murdoch · Wall Street Journal Digg, Facebook, Email: Share [...]</p> [...] about looking at “journalism,” broadly-speaking, as a process rather than an artifact. – from Gigaom Filed Under: TechTags: Rupert Murdoch · Wall Street Journal Digg, Facebook, Email: Share [...]

]]> By: AmmarH http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918316 AmmarH Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:30:15 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918316 <p>Great Post Matthew. Serious stories have multiple players and perspectives....that is what journalists should expose.</p> Great Post Matthew. Serious stories have multiple players and perspectives….that is what journalists should expose.

]]> By: noam http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918290 noam Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:23:32 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918290 <p>This is a great post, but I think it presupposes that the wsj is (or should be) trying to achieve an objective truth, which is arguable...The wsj is a business and I think they're doing what they believe to be the most profitable approach. Whether or not their approach is the right one will be known in the future...</p> This is a great post, but I think it presupposes that the wsj is (or should be) trying to achieve an objective truth, which is arguable…The wsj is a business and I think they’re doing what they believe to be the most profitable approach. Whether or not their approach is the right one will be known in the future…

]]> By: Busby SEO Test Gary Viray http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918287 Busby SEO Test Gary Viray Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:09:30 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918287 <p>I think it will take awhile before traditional media really catches up and understand the purpose of the medium - to be interactive and responsive as they happen. Lessig's point of view should have been recognized right away and even linked /responded to. Otherwise, the trust level of their publication will be seriously affected if this keeps going on and on.</p> I think it will take awhile before traditional media really catches up and understand the purpose of the medium – to be interactive and responsive as they happen. Lessig’s point of view should have been recognized right away and even linked /responded to. Otherwise, the trust level of their publication will be seriously affected if this keeps going on and on.

]]> By: Paul Kapustka http://gigaom.com/2008/12/16/how-the-wsj-failed-the-web-20-test/#comment-918280 Paul Kapustka Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:23:53 +0000 http://gigaom.com/?p=32452#comment-918280 <p>@les madras, what courage is there in being wrong, or in not recognizing that you might have made an error? And who gets to decide which part of the conversation is labeled "spin?"</p> @les madras, what courage is there in being wrong, or in not recognizing that you might have made an error? And who gets to decide which part of the conversation is labeled “spin?”

]]>