Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#21

Post by AlexandrB » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

throwaway8879 wrote: post #7

I'm going to take a cynical stand and claim that the internet as the greybeards envisioned decades ago is just not going to happen. Or perhaps happened for a short window in the early 2000s. I don't see how we can just turn things around. Something new will pop up in a few years, limited within hacker circles, perhaps in a medium beyond computers/phones. It'll have all the nice qualities that we seek such as privacy,…

This kind of repetition is inevitable because there's no technological solution to systemic social problems. An internet like the greybeards envisioned would require changes to our political and economic systems to remove (or at least lessen) the incentives to muck it all up in service of money or power.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#22

Post by metalliqaz » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

stunt wrote: post #3

> “A decentralized internet, a freer internet, that’s what led to the internet being created in the place,” What Facebook did to MySpace, may happen to Facebook soon when a good decentralized social network pops up.

No, that can't happen to Facebook now the way it happened to MySpace. Facebook has too much money. At this point Facebook and Google essentially own the advertising business on the Internet. With that kind of money, they can just buy competitors.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#23

Post by dinkudunk » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

iamsb wrote: post #10

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think he would disagree with you about the problems with Wikipedia moderation? It's not under his control, and it shouldn't be.

yes but he can create better systems where moderation is not controlled by groups of higher privilege. Essentially, from my limited understanding, it is not possible to take away moderation privileges from individuals. Please feel free to correct me on this.

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. They do have Administrators, who can be "removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee" [0]. They can also be removed for other reasons, such as inactivity, and similar.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Revie...

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#24

Post by skribbj » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #20

iamsb wrote: post #4

I agree with Larry about abuse by Facebook and Twitter. I also strongly encourage him to look at state of wikipedia moderations. Specially in a country like India. Lot of pages related to political content is moderated by people who are deeply partisan and have no respect for facts.

> I also strongly encourage him to look at state of wikipedia moderations. I think that the solution is similar to what he's proposing for the social networks: decentralization. One example would be to take hint from github, and allow articles to be forked when they reach some threshold of editing warfare. Embrace and aggregate partisan takes rather pursuing the noble but chimeric goal of neutrality.

Forking Wikipedia articles based on partisanship is actually a super interesting idea.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#25

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I remember there was a moment back in the late 90ies many who already worked with the Web joked on usenet etc that "the Internet is becoming mainstream" (usually as an eye-roll reaction to trolls or somebody gullible forwarding a hoax email ...)

I think we made a big mistake trying to convince everyone that the digital life is like real. E.g. you can have real conversations etc. (they are real but not the same, maybe our discussions online are too real idk), please bear with me ...

IMO there has been a huge interest by Tech to make everyone believe that Online life is very much like real life, for some of us it even did become so (SecondLife, gaming, etc). And there are many calls to enforce real-name policies and to outlaw anonymity in Tech. The theory is that this will improve authenticity, get rid of trolls ("if only we could back this with more security, root of trust", etc).

But when I just judge from myself, how I use the web ... I am not actually "really me" in the same sense. Even posting under my real name I often catch myself having provided some kind of snapshot of my inner state of mind or general feeling, and which to my horror shouldn't be taken at face value (yet it is because I said it and it is written).

When speaking pseudonymously it allows me to air half-baked thoughts and feelings so that I can get feedback (in a safe way) and then allows to improve my thinking on the subject.

I wonder would I say the same things under my real identity ? and the scary answer is sometimes I accidentally do. And I guess others also make these mistakes. Compartmentalizing is really hard and once I said shit the cat is out of the bag ... what was written may haunt me forever.

Getting judged by a prospective employer wading through our social media footprint is already reality, and before entering some countries I have to unlock my phone now. None of this is supposed to be like that IMO because we humans don't compartmentalize our thoughts the same way when we are online as we do when we have a conversation IRL

What tricks us into thinking that "just because we say it we should stick to it", because we use the written form. By saying it in our head and WRITING IT DOWN, it becomes very hard to take a step back and retract our position. Writing things down is one of the keys in how we commit to something according to Robert Caldini[1]. And because we usually write online our not well thought out positions (spitballing), we end up making these spitballs our personal hills to die on. This is something we haven't yet realized: ONLINE != IRL, yet we want to force people to believe it is the same.

[1] Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Rober...

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#26

Post by rabidrat » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

rolha-capoeira wrote: post #16

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I hear you. But this teeters dangerously close to gatekeeping, elitism, or something along those lines. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I think how others feel after reading our comments does matter. Better put, because everyone is on the internet now, the real world's problems are now the internet's problems. It used to serve as an escape, true. It has made the world a smaller place, where problems from a…

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'.

From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them?

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#27

Post by peterwwillis » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 3:02 PM UTC

A lot of people keep declaring the web needs to be more decentralized. I don't think they really have a plan for making things better, though, because decentralized doesn't really mean anything except 'not centralized'.

It doesn't mean 'privacy-focused', because the internet is decentralized, and your privacy isn't inherently guaranteed by it. It doesn't addess how to fund online products, which is what drove the systems we have today. It doesn't describe how we're supposed to convince the world to build products that don't exploit people, and aren't used by the powerful against us.

Saying we need the web to be more decentralized is like saying we need more transparency in politics. Sounds great, but even if it's more transparent, that doesn't mean more legislation is going to get done, or done better. We need more concrete goals, and to focus less on the means of getting there.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#28

Post by Upvoter33 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 3:02 PM UTC

metalliqaz wrote: post #22

stunt wrote: post #3

> “A decentralized internet, a freer internet, that’s what led to the internet being created in the place,” What Facebook did to MySpace, may happen to Facebook soon when a good decentralized social network pops up.

No, that can't happen to Facebook now the way it happened to MySpace. Facebook has too much money. At this point Facebook and Google essentially own the advertising business on the Internet. With that kind of money, they can just buy competitors.

That is true. Which is why the alternative needs to be grass-roots, good enough, and not for profit. It has to be a mission, rather than a corporation. I am curious to see if this can happen....

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#29

Post by raphaelj » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

Is a decentralized social network really the solution?

I'd rather enjoy having a social platform managed for the greater good, by a not-for-profit organization. The Mozilla or Wikimedia of social networks.

Re: Wikipedia co-founder slams the ‘appalling’ internet

#30

Post by wayoutthere » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #25

everdrive wrote: post #12

The internet was much nicer before most people were using it. We usually focus on the technology problems here at HN: filter bubbles, skinner box addictive UIs and content feeds, algorithmic and centralized control. Has anyone simply wondered if the problem with the internet is fundamentally that everyone's on it? It used to be an escape from the problems of the real world. Now it's just a new way for the problems of…

I remember there was a moment back in the late 90ies many who already worked with the Web joked on usenet etc that "the Internet is becoming mainstream" (usually as an eye-roll reaction to trolls or somebody gullible forwarding a hoax email ...) I think we made a big mistake trying to convince everyone that the digital life is like real. E.g. you can have real conversations etc. (they are real but not the same, maybe…

Totally agree with you here!

I use forums like these as a way to pressure-test crazy ideas, or ways I tell a story. My post history is probably full of crazy shit as a result. In no way will I ever link this account to my real name; in fact I’ll probably abandon it in a few months and start another.

As a result, I also tend to take online argumentation to be more of an academic exercise than one capable of changing opinions. You can also argue the opposing side of an issue to understand the nuance there.

But the net takeaway is that the online world does not represent reality; it represents all the possibilities of reality — which can sometimes be horrifying.