In today's science and technology media there is "75/20/5 law"

Absrtact: U.S. Science and technology blog TechCrunch columnist Mg Zeigler (Mg Siegler) recently wrote that the so-called 75/20/5 law in today's science and technology media, that is, in one day, readers see the Science and technology news, 75% is accurate, 20% pure nonsense, only 5%

MG Zeigler, a TechCrunch columnist at the American Science and Technology blog, recently wrote that there is a so-called "75/20/5 law" in today's science and technology media, that is, in one day, readers see the Science and technology news, 75% is accurate, 20% pure nonsense, only 5% true. Therefore, for science and technology news, readers should not take too seriously, should be skeptical.

The following is the full text of the article:

"75/20/5 Law"

A few months ago, I found myself in a situation that I had never seen before--I finally had some free time and a lot of free time. Even so, I do not want to live the "ears" days, but decided to use this rare time, calm down and read the science and technology news. I'm going to do "clear 0" for all the stories I've accumulated over the past year or so--and read them all.

After reading dozens of articles, a pattern gradually began to form in my mind. After hundreds of articles, I summed up a "75/20/5 law". In other words, in any one day, in the science and technology media we see, 75% is accurate, 20% is pure nonsense, only 5% is true.

This may sound exaggerated, but in fact it is not, at least, judged by the hundreds of articles I have collected over the past year or so. For some articles, because I have first-hand information, I know that their reports are not accurate at all; In short, I am personally confident of supporting the "75/20/5 Law" data.

Too dependent on the message source

Actually, that's one of the things I've been thinking about in the last 1.5 years. Time proves that instead of improving, things are getting worse. You may want me to give some examples, and to be honest, almost everything you read is an example. Next, I will take the May this year to buy crowdsourcing map navigation services Waze as an example, to illustrate my theory.

TechCrunch, the Technology blog site, initially invoked "multiple sources of reliable information," saying that Google's acquisition of Waze rumors is completely unfounded. But what about a few weeks from now? TechCrunch apparently slapped himself in the face. Some even suspect that these "multiple reliable sources" are actually pandodaily to another tech blog site, who recently claimed that social e-commerce sites BeachMint is falling apart.

I mentioned TechCrunch and pandodaily because I am quite familiar with these two websites. I now occasionally write for TechCrunch, and theoretically I am a pandodaily investor-I invested in it through Crunchfund. Of course, these two sites have done a good job, and they can always continue this performance. But TechCrunch and PandoDaily are blamed for the confusion and the false coverage of the technology media today.

The pursuit of "the Truth of 5%"

Kevin Roose, Kevin Rousse of New York Magazine, says one solution is to transform tech blogs into business publications, which serve the industry they cover. I personally disagree with this view because we have seen the consequences of this change. The worst posts on these sites are the ones that rewrite on the basis of press releases and then sing carols.

In my opinion, the facts are quite the opposite of Ruth's advice. It is certainly disappointing that many technology media are not encouraging the industry but are cynical about everything. At the same time, a large number of scientific and technological media are moving in another direction, making some of the absurd scientific and technological perspective of the tragedy to attract the page flow of GIF dynamic map.

Still, I'm hopeful about the tech press. Some websites are also proud of themselves for their commitment to the "5% Truth" report. Judging by the articles I collected in the summer, AllThingsD is still very prominent in this respect. In addition, mainstream technology media reports are often more accurate, but they are occasionally surprising, and another problem is that they are simply too slow to update.

The battle between speed and accuracy

In the tech blogosphere, the debate over speed and accuracy has been a long-standing issue. When I first came into this circle, I was definitely in the "Speed" camp. Write the report immediately and let the truth surface. If the reader is dissatisfied with the content, let them see something else.

What I'm worried about is that we're going too far in this falsehoods world. Once reported, no matter how inaccurate, it will be widely disseminated as truth. In this case, speed and exaggeration prevail, while accuracy and detail are close to death.

Worse still, even if the reports are untrue, the sites are rarely held responsible. Those who know the truth rarely stand up to tell the truth, why does this happen? At a time when news updates are fast, a story may be forgotten the next day, unless the event itself is an uproar in the industry.

In addition, in many cases, companies or investors, for some purpose (such as triggering a bidding war, etc.), do hope that inaccurate news is widely disseminated. This is called "Mantis, Oriole," and the only Loser is the truth and the reader.

Readers don't take it too seriously.

I wish I could come up with a solution, but I didn't. Perhaps, the natural purification of the forest is about to be staged, perhaps this scene will eventually become empty. I just want to remind all people like me who love science and technology news, not to take them too seriously, but rather to have reservations. There is little likelihood that the news that you read about is completely true, and there may be some truth, but there may be none at all. It would be nice to know that.

Tech journalists, don't be lazy. You can convince yourself to believe the so-called "facts", but the lack of factual evidence does not confirm anything other than the fact that your sources are unreliable. The best way to get to the truth is often multiple validation. The likelihood that you get all the information you need from a single source is equally slim. The so-called "source of information" is automatically come to the door, perhaps to amuse you. Each time you can find a little bit of information, it eventually adds up and you have to compare that information. To be creative.

Finally, I would like to advise you not to write something because you can write, but to write something you should write, otherwise, do not write anything.