Live data from Hacker News

How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

cambridge.org

441–450 of 669 posts

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#441
post #4

I seem to remember a talk I heard a very long time ago, maybe by Joel Splosky? He was saying that he'd observed the "population change" effect in USENET; where argumentative jerks tended to stay and helpful people tended to be driven away; and in his mind the "reply in-line" mechanic specifically contributed to this. So the first-order goal he had when he built Stack Overflow was to build a system with mechanics whic…

Reddit has this problem and it ultimately drove me (and I'm sure many others) away, it seems like you can't have a nuanced opinion, and god forbid if you have an opinion that goes against the grain of a sub. FWIW, Wikipedia also has this problem. Just spend half an hour going through some page histories and browsing some user pages, you'll find feuds and infighting all over the place. People with a profile saying "I…

[deleted]

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#442

I'd totally settle for the Internet circa 2000-2005 in a box, with a 1990's Google search interface. Gimme a VM, with maybe 20 or 50 TB compressed image of Wikipedia, all of the early Stack Exchange and a few mailing lists or forum archives for Tex, Lisp and whatnot... and I'd be happy on my porch, in my rocking chair with a bottle of whiskey and a pipe to smoke. Why do you kids have to keep meddlin' with things!

> with a 1990's Google search interface.

Well, Google didn't exist until 1998, and hadn't made much impact until about 2002.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#443
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEO, content farms and click mills are the things ruining the internet. All of this is the result of advertising as a business model. For any content, the perverse incentive is to copy it repeatedly with slight variations then monetize the copies with ads and SEO your monetized version to the top of the search results. What we need is a social-first internet where every piece of content is associated with an actual h…

Also, a pay-per-use Internet (where appropriate), where people will vote for content with their wallets, instead of having to purchase subscriptions whether they read an article or not. Just a few minutes ago, I wanted to read an NYT article but it asked me to buy a $1/mo subscription. Very cheap, but a) I don't read NYT that regularly and b) doing that with every news outlet I occasionally read, adds up. On the othe…

(I know it's bad HN to put two replies to a comment, but I found my prepared argument: The Problem With MicroPayments is MicroFraud)

Unsolved, difficult problems of micropayments:

    pay before viewing: how do you know that the thing you're paying for is the thing that you're expecting? What if it's a rickroll or goatse?

    so do you give refunds a la steam?

    pay and adverts: double-dipping is very annoying

    pay and adverts: how do you know who you're paying? A page appears with a micropayment request, but how do you know you've not just paid the advertiser to view their ad?

    pay and frame: can you have multiple payees per displayed page? (this has good and bad ideas)

    pay and popups: it's going to be like those notification or app install modals, yet another annoyance for people to bounce off

    pay limits: contactless has a £30 limit here. Would you have the same payment system suitable for $.01 payments and $1000 payments? How easy is it to trick people into paying over the odds (see refunds)?

    pay and censors: who's excluded from the payment system? Why?
Part 2: business model problems!

    getting money into the system is plagued by usual fraud problems of stolen card transactions for pure digital goods

    nobody wants to build a federated system; everyone wants to build a Play/Apple/Steam store where they take 30%

    winner-take-all effects are very strong

    Play store et al already exist, why not use that?

    Free substitute goods are just a click away

    Consumers will pirate anything no matter how cheap the original is

    No real consumer demand for micropayments
=> lemma from previous 3 items: market for online goods is efficient enough to drive all marginal prices to zero

    existing problem of the play store letting your kid spend all the money

    friction: it would be great if you didn't have to repeatedly approve things, such as a micropayment for every page of a webcomic archive. But blanket approval lets bad actors drain the jar or inattentive users waste it and then feel conned

    first most obvious model for making this work is porn, which is inevitably blacklisted by the payment processors, has a worse environment for fraud/chargebacks, and is toxic to VCs (see Patreon and even Craigslist)

    Internet has actually killed previously working "micropayment" systems such as Minitel, paid ringtones (anyone remember the dark era of Crazy Frog?); surviving ones like premium SMS and phone have a scammy, seedy feel.

    accounting requirements: do you have to pay VAT on that micropayment? do you have to declare it? Is it a federal offence to sell something to an Iranian or North Korean for one cent?

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#444
post #8

It would be good if Wikipedia could stay neutral and not biased. It's not as good as it was.

There's certain "radioactive" topics on Wikipedia where it's almost impossible for contrarian views to get a fair hearing: evolution, vaccination, nationalism, etc.

That's because we have more evidence for evolution and vaccines than we do for gravity.

Those "contrarian views" are little more than fringe conspiracy theories. A fair hearing on those topics is at best a sentence or two.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#445
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are some strong statements without any reference. Haven't you personally dealt with any situation in which you have to take a decision based on incomplete information? That was covid for most part of it. You could compare it with a bet, and some bets look retrospectively "bad" (although we have no way to check, don't we?) There were also plenty of "fringe voices" with ideas that were proven wrong over time, so…

But we decided on one singular truth and literally censored/banned and/or publically shamed all other variants. You get vaccinated, you won't get ill, won't spread the virus, herd immunity, end of covid. At a time, this was the one and only acceptable truth, and everything else, from low efficiency of vaccine, sideffects, "you'll nfect grandma, even if you're vaccinated", "there will never be herd immunity" was consi…

Each time when I hear a phrase starting with "we ..." I feel a bit offended. Who is this "we" you use in the phrase? Does it include me? Because I am pretty sure I did not publicized that much what I decided on various topics.

If you would say "some people decided on one singular truth ...", then I will answer "maybe you should complain to them" (and I would find this positive). I found discussion during covid between such people (that have decided on a singular truth, either side) completely pointless. For me it was always a question of "what to do at that moment in time based on the known information", so more like "what did you found out last", not about "what is THE truth".

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#447
post #4

I seem to remember a talk I heard a very long time ago, maybe by Joel Splosky? He was saying that he'd observed the "population change" effect in USENET; where argumentative jerks tended to stay and helpful people tended to be driven away; and in his mind the "reply in-line" mechanic specifically contributed to this. So the first-order goal he had when he built Stack Overflow was to build a system with mechanics whic…

[flagged]

The gender remark was totally uncalled for, off topic, and not backed by any evidence (other than your personal experience in the form of "I suspect"). Maybe you can rethink what you had in mind. But please don't take my comment as a platform to expand on it.. I'm already regretting pointing this out... But it seemed almost sexist..

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#448
I disagree, I have read a lot of articles on wikipedia and whilst they are factual and tell the truth, they don't always tell the other side which can still be truthful. I am not talking about the most popular topics but more so around niche areas of politics.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#449
post #4

I seem to remember a talk I heard a very long time ago, maybe by Joel Splosky? He was saying that he'd observed the "population change" effect in USENET; where argumentative jerks tended to stay and helpful people tended to be driven away; and in his mind the "reply in-line" mechanic specifically contributed to this. So the first-order goal he had when he built Stack Overflow was to build a system with mechanics whic…

Reddit has this problem and it ultimately drove me (and I'm sure many others) away, it seems like you can't have a nuanced opinion, and god forbid if you have an opinion that goes against the grain of a sub. FWIW, Wikipedia also has this problem. Just spend half an hour going through some page histories and browsing some user pages, you'll find feuds and infighting all over the place. People with a profile saying "I…

I stopped contributing like 15-ish years ago because it seemed pointless. Anything I might think to contribute by its very nature doesn't already have a presence on the site, and it seems like any and everything that does get added immediately gets some asshole throwing up a debate to try to get it deleted.

One of the things in particular I felt that there should be more of a presence of (because it was basically nonexistent at the time) and I had some good knowledge of, was for Flash animations and games that had literally tens of millions of views and were practically pop culture for some of them.

But because there wasn't a dead paper news article I could easily cite, that was enough for it to be 'not notable' and eligible for long and stupid debates on whether or not there should be an article about it on this virtual Wikipedia that doesn't have a size limitation.

So stupid. Lost interest pretty quickly after that (I had contributed a few dozen minor edits before I started trying to submit those pages).

Now, of course, many years later, there's a whole bunch of them included on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Flash_games But at the time the editors kept arguing to get them killed.

I also notice that a lot of the references that are included on these pages were ones that would be consider not-notable back then, because they are online web articles. Those weren't primary source enough for them at the time.

Re: How Wikipedia became the last good place on the internet

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hahaha seriously. this is the internet they want to go back to. Well there were obviously good and bad things about it. Some people think there's a way to be inclusive unlike the way it was once very exclusive while still embracing the general ethos of the original Internet - which was people connected directly via the infrastructure rather than through third party corporations. We can have an inclusive internet -…

Can we though? That comment demonstrates very clearly that it wasn't as democratic as people are remembering. You had a chance to make an inclusive internet, and you made an encyclopedia that was blind to the largest most significant art & cultural movement in generations. What are you going to do differently this time?

I enjoyed the tweet above as a glimpse into the past, but it's far too cherry-picked for you to use it as an indictment of the early internet. The article for 'Gangsta Rap' (May '01) predates 'Country Music' (Oct '01), 'English Language' (Nov '01) and 'Mayonnaise' (Jul '02), but you wouldn't think very highly of me if I used that to make an opposite claim.

I don't think the 'Hip Hop Music' (Apr '03) cherry-pick even holds up on its own. The creation edit says it's being taken from an already-existing page called 'Hip hop', whose history I'm unable to find.

Post reply on HN