31–40 of 45 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK The real problem is lack of new blood. Old editors who become masters of wikipedia rules-fu are to blame.
Agreed. I am an old admin driven mad by rules-fu thus contributing less than ever.
New contributors come to contribute. Conflicts arise, thus rules are needed. People who enjoy rules tend to win arguments, geting a kick out of it, while losers feel miserable. So far so good. Normal churn of editors occur, but with time dynamic above leads to old crew / good rules players to stay, while more idealistic people who care about rules less tend to drop the project faster. Thus with time old guard becomes a problem - they feel skillful enough to control the process and perversely get enjoyment mostly from moderation /rules application process, not from actual content contribution.
My solution for this problem - force old guard to retire. I.e. you can edit Wikipedia for X years. After that you are banned for life.
Would that help?
(obviously, enforcement of this rule is not trivial, but that is another problem).
> There are cases where Wikipedia is biased, not because of any intention of people to be biased, but just because no one cares about that thing except fans of that thing. This woefully understates the very intentional bias of editors. As an example, take a look at the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, which includes bombshells such as "Secretary of Commerce…
An interesting write up on the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I am an old admin driven mad by rules-fu thus contributing less than ever.
Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow have a problem of retaining new contributors. I always had my pet theory on possible solution for this problem, and I wonder what do you think about it. I see it like that. New contributors come to contribute. Conflicts arise, thus rules are needed. People who enjoy rules tend to win arguments, geting a kick out of it, while losers feel miserable. So far so good. Normal churn of edito…
> There are cases where Wikipedia is biased, not because of any intention of people to be biased, but just because no one cares about that thing except fans of that thing. This woefully understates the very intentional bias of editors. As an example, take a look at the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, which includes bombshells such as "Secretary of Commerce…
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ An interesting write up on the subject.
So two right wing perspectives against each other. Worthless study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow have a problem of retaining new contributors. I always had my pet theory on possible solution for this problem, and I wonder what do you think about it. I see it like that. New contributors come to contribute. Conflicts arise, thus rules are needed. People who enjoy rules tend to win arguments, geting a kick out of it, while losers feel miserable. So far so good. Normal churn of edito…
Principle is good. Maybe a lighter touch version where good or neutral karma actions like lengthening or otherwise generally modifying an article are excepted and only potentially demotivating actions like substantially shortening, deleting, or arguing with people are restricted (maybe 1 per week).
I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…
Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation.
The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us.
This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity.
Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma
Casey Newton - The Verge
Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines
Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project
--
Said another way:
Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name.
Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.
That isn't moderation, that is curation. It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
They still control my filter bubble.
I want my own filter bubble, under my own control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.
That isn't moderation, that is curation. It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
> It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
Every single person in the history of our species, has always, will always, and will never be prevented from doing this. The underlying implication of this complaint is that you’d prefer to control what misinformation people consume, rather than letting people choose it for themselves, and make their own minds up about it.
If Jimmy is such an expert on incentives, why are all the long term editors leaving?