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

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

#121

Post by duskwuff » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #15

iamsb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think even if you had complete control to re-write the Wikipedia system from scratch, creating effective moderation systems is a super challenging. Trying to change the current system given the existing entrenched interest is damn near impossible. If you have a specific system change you thought could and should be made by Sanger, let's hear it (though I won't be able to assess).

> If you have a specific system change you thought could and should be made by Sanger

As I've tried to point out elsewhere: Mr. Sanger departed from the Wikipedia project in 2002, and, in the time since, has been openly critical of the project. He really isn't in much of a position to make changes to the project he departed from 17 years ago.

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

#122

Post by temp1231213 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

decasteve wrote: post #50

Avoid the mainstream media, advertising-centric sites, social media, et al, and the Internet is mostly fine. Stick to the niche sites and services that have always been there and it’s a much more pleasant place.

> Avoid the mainstream media

I seriously had that thought today. I do believe journalists report the facts and are not 'fake' news. But boy, is news opinionated nowadays. Every channel you go to, its all about selling you outrage. The CNN YouTube channel is especially cringe worthy for me. To see a respected news channel turn to click bait titles and circling pictures makes me kind of sad. I wish they didn't do that.

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

#123

Post by KKPMW » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #113

KKPMW wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even just political content or history. Take for example economics: There is an article about economics, obviously. And in its "criticism" section there is a long paragraph about criticism of economics from a feminist point of view. However wikipedia also has an article about feminist economics. Which is almost equal in length to the article about economics in general. And if you go to the feminist economics…

You say that the "feminist economics" article does not seem impartial to you, but have you tried improving it? You could add that Criticism section.

My point was more about a big part of Wikipedia being ideologically biased. This Feminist Economics page was just an example.

A lot of articles in Wikipedia are inside the battle ground for politics. I like to talk about it and point it out. But would rather stay a safe distance away.

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

#124

Post by everdrive » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:47 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…

I understand your point and certainly sympathize with it. A counterpoint, I suppose, is that the old internet may have still informed you about the plight of marginalized people in a foreign country. And if you were a good person, you might care, and learn more, and see if there was anything you could do which might help.

The new internet does this as well, but along with it is the modern scarlet letter: the plague of judgement, outrage, and moral hysteria. It's a technological "Scarlet Letter" or "Rape of the Lock." Importantly, it's not just that I personally might want to escape these things, it's that society as a whole is being transformed by them. Is it good that people can apparently easily be manipulated in Burma by Facebook groups? For sure, there is some good with the bad. I'm not suggesting that the modern internet doesn't do any good for people. But, it brings with it all the problems of society.

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

#125

Post by gmfawcett » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

rolha-capoeira wrote: post #103

gmfawcett wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Vandals were at the gates, would you invite them into your community? Or would you rather live until tomorrow? From day-one, humans have had to deal with the very real threat of other humans trying to kill them. Unless you subscribe to a social-Darwinist belief that the strongest tribe can rightfully wipe out or absorb every one of its enemies -- and the weaker tribes deserve to go -- your morality must reckon…

Feels like we've jumped the shark a bit, from talking about a free and open global Internet to talking about Vandals wanting to conquer our tribe? Obviously, we should keep people out that want to end our way of life, but that isn't where this conversation should be going. The original comment was talking about the privilege of early internet usage and escapism. And so to bring it back around, I can understand the no…

We've hopped perhaps, but not jumped the shark. You did invoke morality and the human condition as the basis of your statements about the Internet. So a rebuttal on that front is fair game.

We mustn't disregard that other people are applying the dangerous-tribe mentality to their reasoning about the Internet. There are extant fears of hackers and terrorists organizing and funding their operations online, right alongside the bake sales and peaceful marches. Some of those fears may be justified, and the actors may represent a danger to our way of life. But even if they were all boogeymen, the fear is real, and people act dangerously and irrationally when they are afraid. The existence of an open forum where even boogeymen can converse, itself, leads to a general unease and reactionist policy making.

Balance is needed in these discussions, but we can't achieve that without acknowledging that there may be a few Vandals in our midst who've already made it past the gates. If we pretend otherwise, we will be constantly talking past each other.

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

#126

Post by everdrive » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #59

braythwayt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fundamental difference between "Everyone should be allowed on the Internet," and, "Everyone should be allowed onto every social media site." Or, "Everyone on a social media site should be encouraged to interact with everyone else." For example, maybe everybody should be able to read the President's tweets. But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? At this po…

>But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? The ability to directly and freely communicate with leaders (and for them to communicate with one another) is incredibly revolutionary. It is unfortunate that Twitter, of all places, a site whose entire purpose is top-of-mind contextless microblogging, is where this revolution is taking place, and that the President in questio…

>The ability to directly and freely communicate with leaders (and for them to communicate with one another) is incredibly revolutionary.

I agree with you, but why do you believe the discourse is so bad?

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

#127

Post by everdrive » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:52 PM UTC

rolha-capoeira wrote: post #44

rabidrat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. [That's not the kind of gatekeeping I meant, but to your statement...] According to whom? That's one social philosophy, I suppose, but I'd call it more anti-social. From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts. Outcasts aside, the idea th…

>From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts.

Please explain warring tribes and city states.

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

#128

Post by nradov » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

WorldMaker wrote: post #90

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that "online" still has real consequences: those spitballs that become personal hills to die on bleed back out into the real world as partisanship or, worse, violence. Things that are written may not just haunt us forever, but things that we read may as well. Mental health is something culturally we don't have strong controls on, and yet evidence backs that our physical health is strongly correlated to…

Caution is unnecessary. People are responsible for their own mental health. It's not my problem.

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

#129

Post by nsajko » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

KKPMW wrote: post #123

nsajko wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that the "feminist economics" article does not seem impartial to you, but have you tried improving it? You could add that Criticism section.

My point was more about a big part of Wikipedia being ideologically biased. This Feminist Economics page was just an example. A lot of articles in Wikipedia are inside the battle ground for politics. I like to talk about it and point it out. But would rather stay a safe distance away.

Yeah, but people wanting to "stay a safe distance away" is exactly what makes articles vulnerable. Wiki-style projects rely on many different interested parties contributing for accuracy and "neutral" point of view.

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

#130

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #93

polskibus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any particular niche sites that you have in mind and could recommend to others?

Ravelry is a lovely social network for knitters, crotchers, and spinners. It's a relatively small site, but it's a model for how social networks should work. Because it's built around a shared interest that people spend money on, the site can sell ad slots instead of relying on real-time bidding based ad networks.

Ravelry just had a controversy over banning patterns that had Trump's face on them as white-supremacist content.