I am taken aback by the fact that this can be promoted as an example of "good journalism". The story is wonderful, and fascinating, but it comes from the company that owns Digg's competition, reddit. The disclaimer is there... but is it enough? It is a good story, it certainly is "good competition", but its ethical grounds seem to be shaky.Can this be "good journalism"?

A review of the system that couldn't be beat - and was. Well written first person account of an 'experiment' by Analee Newitz. Very colloquial but fun to read.

This story misses the key point; yes you can buy votes on Digg, but over time, the wisdom of crowds asserted itself and the stupid story for which he bought votes was buried. The writer completely misses the deeper point, I think. Bought votes on Digg lose value as the community applies its own value.

Another example of how social networks can be malicioulsly gamed. Overall, this appears to be good reporting: the journalist went out of her way to check the evidence by hiring scammers, and seems quite fair and thoughtful in her analysis. But based on Francis Pisani's comment about possible conflicts of interest, I lowered my rating a bit; though I could not confirm any unethical behavior on the author's part.

Good to know how easy it is to buy votes & effect results. It reminds me of the 'independent' mainstream media. Reporting according to pay.

Clever. Paid blog buzz is a growing concern, and this story is a pretty eye-opening depiction of it.