Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Sidewiki

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Google Sidewiki

#71

Post by LightBug1 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

I desperately do not want this to succeed. Who moderates it? No moderation means a fractal of spam, hate, propaganda, and low-value posts. You cannot have a system like this that's resistant to Sybil attacks without centralization or federation (or at least not without forcing users to get into crypto to use it... No thanks). You either accept that it's centralized, and it becomes siloed (see: reddit, Twitter) or you…

Who moderates wikipedia?

Re: Google Sidewiki

#72

Post by phatfish »

bastawhiz wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

I desperately do not want this to succeed. Who moderates it? No moderation means a fractal of spam, hate, propaganda, and low-value posts. You cannot have a system like this that's resistant to Sybil attacks without centralization or federation (or at least not without forcing users to get into crypto to use it... No thanks). You either accept that it's centralized, and it becomes siloed (see: reddit, Twitter) or you…

Yup it sounds awful, at least with Reddit and to a much lesser extent Twitter the conversation is kept somewhat in control by people having to subscribe to a Subreddit or follow accounts that interest them.

Imagine the signal to noise ratio on some random NY Times article, or any other moderately popular website. I expect most people are thankful the NY Times only enables comments on selected articles.

Re: Google Sidewiki

#73

Post by spondylosaurus »

LightBug1 wrote: post #71
bastawhiz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I desperately do not want this to succeed. Who moderates it? No moderation means a fractal of spam, hate, propaganda, and low-value posts. You cannot have a system like this that's resistant to Sybil attacks without centralization or federation (or at least not without forcing users to get into crypto to use it... No thanks). You either accept that it's centralized, and it becomes siloed (see: reddit, Twitter) or you…

Who moderates wikipedia?

Unpaid contributors who care a lot about maintaining the quality of articles (and spend a lot of time doing so).

Re: Google Sidewiki

#75

Post by crazygringo »

bastawhiz wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

I desperately do not want this to succeed. Who moderates it? No moderation means a fractal of spam, hate, propaganda, and low-value posts. You cannot have a system like this that's resistant to Sybil attacks without centralization or federation (or at least not without forcing users to get into crypto to use it... No thanks). You either accept that it's centralized, and it becomes siloed (see: reddit, Twitter) or you…

OK, let's spitball. Maybe too much for an HN comment, but here we go:

- Define an open protocol

- There are multiple viewers (browser plug-ins), so different users can choose a different viewing/comment ranking interface experience

- There are multiple "channels" of comments for any piece of content, but usually channels will be topic-wide, sitewide, or even internet-wide. All content for a channel comes from a single server. If channels were pulling from existing sites, an episode of TV might have a channel of Reddit comments, a channel of Vulture comments, a channel of AV Club comments, and anyone can create a channel. (Maybe Reddit and Vulture don't participate at all)

- The person/group who runs a channel does/delegates all of the moderation for that channel. They do this out of the good of their hearts, much like Reddit moderators

- Each plug-in gives you a default, or a choice of, approved/blocked channel lists according to your political/cultural/etc. preferences. These lists are maintained similar to adblock lists, each of which are curated by groups with those preferences. So you can avoid unmoderated toxic channels or view them exclusively

- And so each viewer will combine all of the comments from all approved channels into a single comment list. Each top-level comment can come from a different channel, but all subcomments always belong to that same channel. When you leave a top comment, you can choose which channel to leave it in (or have it default to whichever channel is most popular, similar to picking the most popular subreddit on a certain topic)

- User accounts are managed by separate servers, but user servers don't hold comments/upvotes/etc. They merely provide signing to prove comments came from the same user, index comments left by that user, sum the user's received votes (which can be independently verified by the channels), etc. These servers are similarly moderated to kick out abusive users. Channels don't allow comments from users from user servers that don't kick out abusive users. Ultimately your identity is proved by a private key you can always take to a new server. Probably, the groups behind the most popular channels and/or most popular lists will provide these user servers as well

Whaddaya think?

Re: Google Sidewiki

#76

Post by mbreese »

andrepd wrote: post #64
crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

>And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Reddit), giving more weight to users who are consistently upvoted, etc. This is what I most certainly would not want to see. The prioritisation of "upvoted" content and comments is the number one source of all kinds of perverse proble…

> The prioritisation of "upvoted" content and comments is the number one source of all kinds of perverse problems with modern social media

I (unsurprisingly) like the HN method… the public can’t see the exact number of votes for a comment, but the comments are still ordered by number of votes. And comments with negative votes are styled differently, but you don’t know exactly what the vote totals are.

Yes, you can still have echo chambers and manipulation, but it’s more difficult to effectively manipulate. (At least without a lot of external coordination, in which case the site is already fighting a losing battle).

Re: Google Sidewiki

#77

Post by wpietri »

crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

Funnily, this is an idea that keeps recurring. I talked with a would-be founder circa 1999 who wanted a discussion sidebar for every website. He too was excited about wresting control of the experience of a site from the site's owners. My memory is kinda fuzzy here, but I think this is what the idea turned into:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000301142549/http://www.shopto...

It looks like it went from being a global community (which raises lots of questions, both the ones you mention and things like who moderates it) to something with a much clearer revenue model, one where companies pay for add-on forums. And then blew up at the same time Bubble 1.0 did.

The fact that people keep trying this but that we still don't have it makes me suspect there are fundamental flaws, but I've been wrong about that before.

Re: Google Sidewiki

#78

Post by crazygringo »

TillE wrote: post #55
crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

Funny, I've always hated scrolling down and accidentally seeing comments on news articles, which are almost uniformly garbage. I think it's a terrible way to present any kind of serious story, it makes for a worse experience. If I want to discuss an article, there's Twitter, Reddit, etc. The NYT used to have a good public editor (Margaret Sullivan) you could complain to, but she's long gone. I will say that The Verge…

> If I want to discuss an article, there's Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Most articles don't have a Reddit thread, and it's impossible to view commentary around a URL on Twitter in any kind of cohesive forum-like way.

Also, I don't want to have to constantly be copying and pasting URL's into other sites. I just want it right there automatically.

Re: Google Sidewiki

#79

Post by Blackthorn »

crazygringo wrote: post #75
bastawhiz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I desperately do not want this to succeed. Who moderates it? No moderation means a fractal of spam, hate, propaganda, and low-value posts. You cannot have a system like this that's resistant to Sybil attacks without centralization or federation (or at least not without forcing users to get into crypto to use it... No thanks). You either accept that it's centralized, and it becomes siloed (see: reddit, Twitter) or you…

OK, let's spitball. Maybe too much for an HN comment, but here we go: - Define an open protocol - There are multiple viewers (browser plug-ins), so different users can choose a different viewing/comment ranking interface experience - There are multiple "channels" of comments for any piece of content, but usually channels will be topic-wide, sitewide, or even internet-wide. All content for a channel comes from a singl…

I thought about this sort of thing as a reddit replacement. Browser extension that creates a forum on any arbitrary page. Backend is just nntp so pick your own server.

Can't work on it because of corporate ip ownership and all that nonsense. It's a pretty trivial idea though, pretty much anyone could implement it if you don't bother writing a bespoke news client.

Re: Google Sidewiki

#80

Post by rvba »

crazygringo wrote: post #42

I also desperately want something like this to succeed. I want to be able to see others' reactions on all NYTimes articles, for example, not just the handful each day they enable comments on, or the occasional one submitted to HN. And I want it to have all of the standard functionality -- hierarchical comments (like HN and Reddit), upvoting and downvoting, auto-collapsing tangential threads with less votes (like Redd…

You want the reddit sidebar back...

I miss the reddit sidebar. But it got blocked because new technology does not allow it.

Post reply on HN