Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People • Hacker News Board

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#271

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #218

naravara wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but outlier Wikipedia editors need only be superhumanly obsessive. Yup. The way the internet works is it privileges the perspectives and opinions of people who have an abundance of time to spend on the internet (either because their jobs are online or because they just have a lot of free time). So you wind up seeing the perspectives of bored office workers overrepresented and manual laborers underrepresented, you se…

80% of US workers are in the service sector, 12.6% in manufacturing, 1.5% in agriculture. 60% spend the entire workday sitting. The notion that manufacturing workers are the real America and desk jobs are held by privileged outliers may have been true at one time, but today it is a myth. The right model for “average working stiff” today works in a hospital, restaurant, or government office building. Stats per BLS: ht…

Desk jobs are common. Jobs that let someone spend much time editing Wikipedia are not.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#272

Post by sneak » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #199

gniv wrote: post #157

Most of the comments here are either elaborating on the OP, or justify lurking. I am a mostly-lurker myself, but I felt the need to comment here, since I was hoping to see the discussion go into a different direction. The OP uses the word "insane", not outlier. It's clickbaity, and used in jest, but I think it better captures a subtlety of this phenomenon: The prolific commenters are molding every discussion in their…

A related phenomenon I've been thinking about is the impact of traditional entertainment media (TV, Movies and Music) and the inherent bias in the sample of worldviews that the people who work in those businesses espouse. In other words, we only hear and watch stories from those people who chose storytelling as their career, and if you assume we are inevitably influenced by their views then we're effectively taking a…

This is why I constantly work to become a better storyteller, both for personal and professional reasons. You must promulgate the narrative surrounding yourself and your work or someone else will.

Humans absolutely require a narrative surrounding anything with which they consider themselves associated with. It’s vastly superior to that being one provided by you versus one invented for use by those who know you.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#273

Post by soundwave106 » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #196

IggleSniggle wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a story like this, but I did the work (that was backed out) over a decade ago. The domain was not especially political (something related to history of music notation). It sticks with you because when you are already an expert in an area, and spend days contributing high quality content with good references only to have it vaporized without comment/reason, it is deeply demoralizing and creates long standing re…

Yep. I made an attempt to get into it over a decade ago, and it didn't help that I was heavy in the Flash game/animation scene and felt that was the best way to contribute. I say it didn't help, because so few of those pass the ridiculously restrictive 'Notability Test' of Wikipedia. The animation could have 50 million views and be known across the internet, but because no 'reputable news organization' wrote about it…

Generally speaking these days, whenever I see a non-minor / specialist article in need of correction, I tend to rely on the talk section to make points that maybe an editor can apply better.

That's what I did for Wikipedia's article on software synthesizers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_synthesizer), which in 2014 was rather out of date, particularly on its "typical" examples and other elements.

The article does look a fair bit better now. It does seem to still carry a little awkwardness (eg statements like "a software instrument is akin to a soundfont" which is not really correct) and a few out-of-date moments (eg why mention Csound and Nyquist as music programming language examples but not mention more common examples these days such as Max/MSP or PureData?) and some other quibbles I have. But it is better. Maybe I'll have to make a few more talk points someday. :)

Personally, I do think Wikipedia for the casual contributor is unfortunately broken. But given the amount of trolls and agenda-oriented people out there, I actually can understand why there is a high barrier to entry. It's just a bit unfortunate because it also restricts the diversity of the contribution ecosystem. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two personally...

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#274

Post by sneak » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

sizzle wrote: post #254

airstrike wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related phenomenon I've been thinking about is the impact of traditional entertainment media (TV, Movies and Music) and the inherent bias in the sample of worldviews that the people who work in those businesses espouse. In other words, we only hear and watch stories from those people who chose storytelling as their career, and if you assume we are inevitably influenced by their views then we're effectively taking a…

I've always wondered in the back of my mind how judges and elected officials are influenced by movies and television.

Try not to think about how much tax money the military spends to ensure that it is portrayed in a very specific manner in mass media such as television, movies, and sporting events.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-...

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#275

Post by biomcgary » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #219

airstrike wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related phenomenon I've been thinking about is the impact of traditional entertainment media (TV, Movies and Music) and the inherent bias in the sample of worldviews that the people who work in those businesses espouse. In other words, we only hear and watch stories from those people who chose storytelling as their career, and if you assume we are inevitably influenced by their views then we're effectively taking a…

In other words, we only hear and watch stories from those people who chose storytelling as their career There has been a transition from culture being produced by members of one's community/village/family to culture being produced by professionals for money. Stories and songs of the past were just as unbalanced and insane as stories and songs of the present. (Both in terms of being fantastical and showing only one si…

>There has been a transition from culture being produced by members of one's community/village/family to culture being produced by professionals for money.

I have certainly seen this shift in culture creation to professionals within Christian communities in the US. The modern megachurches (2000+ attendees) are rather different culturally from the small community churches of the past (~150-200 members). The shift has coincided with increased political polarization (e.g., Jerry Falwell and his relatively early megachurch) and personal isolation.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#276

Post by aaavl2821 » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #199

gniv wrote: post #157

Most of the comments here are either elaborating on the OP, or justify lurking. I am a mostly-lurker myself, but I felt the need to comment here, since I was hoping to see the discussion go into a different direction. The OP uses the word "insane", not outlier. It's clickbaity, and used in jest, but I think it better captures a subtlety of this phenomenon: The prolific commenters are molding every discussion in their…

A related phenomenon I've been thinking about is the impact of traditional entertainment media (TV, Movies and Music) and the inherent bias in the sample of worldviews that the people who work in those businesses espouse. In other words, we only hear and watch stories from those people who chose storytelling as their career, and if you assume we are inevitably influenced by their views then we're effectively taking a…

This applies to news as well, and in this form is more dangerous. There's almost always a story behind a story -- someone with an agenda who pitches a reporter on publishing their narrative

So the news you read isn't necessarily the most accurate take (you could argue it's almost never the most accurate take), and there is often a tremendous amount of bias that most people never know exists. A disproportionate number of stories come from a small but motivated group with an agenda. Those with no agenda don't care as much about getting their perspectives distributed

This isn't a novel observation, but i still think most people take news at face value more often than they should.

I think it's also a good example of why it's important to make your voice heard, even if it's as simple as commenting on Reddit / HN. Having informed public discussions requires that informed but disinterested (i.e. unbiased) parties make their voices heard.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#277

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #169

throwawaymath wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is as much of a difference as you're saying. I agree most actors we see on TV and movies are outliers (even within the total population of actors). I don't agree they are consequently better than most other people at acting. I think they're marginally better, somewhat practiced, but really "into it" as a career. Likewise, I think you're underestimating how "good" someone is at a thing if they do i…

regarding actors, I actually disagree. Sometimes I will watch a movie made with second rate actors and they tend to be so much worse than first rate actors at acting, that often those movies are unwatchable.

I suspect that with acting:

1. Luck does indeed play at big role in getting a break, the right roles, the right director, etc. A lot of people who could have become big stars don't. People know this and leap from there to the whole thing being pretty random.

2. It's often not obvious what makes a great actor that much greater than someone who is not quite so great. Film probably accentuates the differences. But even with mid- to top-level professional theater, the whole cast is probably pretty solid, but the stars really shine in hard to put your finger on it ways. In more "normal" professional roles, it's usually a lot easier to peg why someone is just better than someone else.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#278

Post by adultSwim » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

"Insane": Thanks for throwing those of us with health issues under the bus.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#279

Post by glitcher » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #192

While there is an interesting and relevant point in this article, I feel compelled to point out another possibility: you only comment if you have a POV or opinion not yet represented. If I'm seeing somebody else make the point I thought of making, I upvote it and move on, only spending the time to comment when I don't see it already there. It would be odd if, after viewing/reading the exact same content, we all had u…

I came here to express the same sentiment.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#280

Post by jungler » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #166

mr_spothawk wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this argument does resonate. i started getting downvoted a lot. since then, i've become much more of a lurker and have remained logged-out. to me it's obvious, and necessarily the case, that the conversation happening is not representative of my views because i'm not sharing them. it's not worth it to me to contribute to the conversation, and get embroiled in an accidental dispute. my views are my own, and i don't ne…

I agree with this. I suspect that any community with “downvoting” or similar would skew more forward outliers, because the prevailing group-think will downvote contrary content and getting downvoted stings, scaring off many who might otherwise add diverse perspectives. But even without voting mechanisms, nasty replies are just as bad or worse, so the general trend of chasing off the people who see things a little dif…

I walked around the problem of replies(on Reddit/HN) by never looking at them. I have a red envelope of 150 or so now.

Every once in a while I imagine something anxiety inducing about them, or catch a glimpse(and more often than not a positive one) in the automatic reply emails Reddit likes to send me. Sometimes I will look back at the thread, if I really want to know.

But I don't use these platforms to converse, even though I will happily make a reply to an existing thread. They are both too fast and too slow to be conversational. I use comment threads as a writing prompt instead, and by ignoring external feedback I don't experience pain from them, even though some of the time this might result in someone asking me something and never hearing a reply. If my idea is good, someone copies it and I see it in a later thread.