Welcome, New Users, to The Daily Kos. This Diary is intended to help you orient yourself to the site and ask questions about how to use it.
In the Body you will find some links intended to get you participating more effectively. Also in the Body this week is a descussion of why It's Just A Blog.
After that you can ask me any question you want. I don't know all the answers so if you stump me, you do. I invite those wiser than I to contribute and correct (or raise a ruckus, just don't scare people).
No permission slips needed, join us at the deep end of the pool for adult swim.
Hello Devil. Welcome to Hell.
If your user id (hover your mouse over your name in any comment, look at the status bar in the bottom of your browser) is larger than 197092 you probably haven't had the opportunity to participate in one of my Welcome New Users diaries.
That would be 754 of you more or less.
There are 13 of them that I consider the New Users Guide and I encourage you to take a look at the table of contents at least so you can see what kind of information is already available.
But don't panic, I'm always happy to review.
It's just a blog!
This is an argument with 2 points.
The first and most indisputable is this-
I do not speak for the site.
There are in fact a limited number of people who do, and they are listed on the masthead and they publish on that wide part of the main page over on the left hand side that no real, true, patriotic kossack pays attention to anyway.
They are commonly called Front Pagers (at least by me) and I normally cite them in their site administration role.
But to the extent that the site as a whole can be said to be subject to scrutiny as if it were journalism of any description at all it begins and ends with them.
And the primary responsibility is individual anyway. I don't think there's an enforced 'ideological unity' on the front page, these people disagree all the time. If you don't like what any particular one of them posts, dropping by to pick a fight is entirely up to you.
I think on administrative matters there's a presumption of ex cathedra, but on political ones not so much.
I pay attention to Adam B and ct on legal and technical issues entirely since they officially speak for the site in those areas.
kos is a nice guy, and without his encouragement early in my writing career I wouldn't be the author I am today. I don't feel compelled to say that his every political insight's a gem, and he and I disagree sharply on some site management issues.
On the other hand he pays the bills. It's quite a thing when that stops and all your work goes down the tubes. Ephemeral Photons (shakes fist at cloud).
Other than that I'll not embarrass my favorites with endorsements from my undisclosed location in Waziristan.
Now there is an entire section of the site THAT IN NO WAY AT ALL expresses the opinion of the management, such as it is. For which kos and co. are not responsible at all since it's such a fetid festering swamp of rumors, lies, and innuendo.
It's that skinny little ribbon on the extreme right. After the Ads.
They are not responsible for the 'Recommended Diaries'. You vote for them with your 'Diary Recommends'. If something you object to gets promoted there, there's no way to combat it except with more free speech. Good luck with that 50th diary that should have been a comment that debunks the Recommended Diary.
My Second Point
Told you I have one.
Don't believe everything you read on the Toobz or see in the Newz, especially n00bz.
The ONLY way you can determine whether a source of information is credible or not is on the basis of demonstrated expertise.
For instance, I tell you I have some knowledge of how Daily Kos works. I make a prediction about what will happen if you do A and B and C. You duplicate my experiment and replicate my results.
Now the more often I do this, the more credibility I gain and the less inclined you are to actually duplicate the experiment. Still, I consider this level of confidence entirely justified. After all the results are there to be replicated any time.
Now were I less scrupulous I might be inclined to lead you to apply this to my more questionable pronouncements in areas where my expertise is not demonstrated. I would then be relying on my reputation alone and it's a dangerous thing to do.
People make honest mistakes, and one of them is failing to distinguish between their professional and private opinion publicly and we should not punish them for our credulity, but rather examine why we believed them in the first place. Did the narrative fit what we already thought we knew?
If the Corporate Media is feeding us fictitious facts and propaganda what do you expect from the 'net?
This site is not a news aggregator, though people are free to do that with their individual, not representative of the site, diaries. It is a community of activists dedicated to Democratic electoral victory. A good part of that mission is training and motivating activists and facilitating their communication. Credibility is dependent on Democratic victory. If it wins elections, it worked.
My main problem with pundits is how they can be so wrong so often and still retain their audience.
It's just a blog!
The opinions people express in their diaries and comments are just their opinions. Anyone appealing to expertise better be prepared to demonstrate it, otherwise they're just another Joe Gasbag whatever credentials they claim.
If they have predictive ability, hurray! If they are wrongheaded and objectionable you can either have an argument about that or find a different seat at the pub.
In any event your credibility is based on what you say and do and not on other people's behavior.
And if you're ashamed to be seen in our company why stay?
I know it's just a short diary but...