Over the past 10 years many good online publications have come and gone. Throughout that time there is one site that I have visited more than any other when looking for interesting takes on world news, explanations of issues, or just plain fun essays.

That site is Slate, which has recently celebrated its 10-year anniversary. To commemorate it, the site published a compilation of some of its best articles. It also posted, at its website, a collection of not only some of the best articles but also essays from its critics, a bold move.

Malcolm Gladwell, one of my favorite science writers, sums it up perfectly: “I don’t think I’ve ever gone to Slate and not been fascinated, educated, infuriated, or simply found myself laughing out loud.”

I received a copy of the Slate book and David Plotz, Slate’s deputy editor, was kind enough to agree to an interview about the book and the site. I began by asking him about the introduction to the book where the original editor, Michael Kinsley, invents a term to describe what it’s like to succeed as a site while others failed.

Scott: One of the first things to catch my attention in the 10th anniversary book is a term coined to speak to the advantage of surviving where other web ventures failed. Michael Kinsley uses the catchy term "FUA -  Fuckyouability." Are you disappointed or surprised that term did not catch on?  

David: Not surprised — it begins with the unfamily-friendly word "fuck," after all — but it is a great phrase.  

Scott: Why was it decided to include critiques and criticisms of Slate on its web site as part of your tenth anniversary celebration? That seemed an unusual  but respectable move.  

David: It felt, for lack of a better word, Slate-y to include the critiques. God knows we did enough self-congratulation, and that we came in for enough praise. It seemed honest, and fun, to give the critics a baseball bat and let them take a cut. Kinsley imbued the magazine with his spirit: ruthless intellectual honesty, and never taking yourself too seriously. We still try to hew to that model.  

Scott: One of the most striking things I see when reading and perusing Slate is the contrarian reporting, whether it's writing about how Falwell may have gotten a bad rap on the Teletubbies issue, or other topics  where the rest of the media got things wrong (a specialty of Slate press critic Jack Shafer). Is being contrarian an intended goal or just a common end result?