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

Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 363 posts

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#311

Post by tanepiper »

port515 wrote: post #213
juliusdavies wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider Wikipedia to be the last standing wonder of the WWW (world wide web). - Google search results get worse every year. - Stackoverflow lies in ruins (albeit the ruins are still useful). - ICQ/Gtalk/AIM completely dead and all in silos now (Slack). - Twitter is dead. - Facebook is too annoying now. Google Maps is still amazing, but I consider that more a miracle of the internet as opposed to a miracle of the W…

You forgot Digg

Nowadays, everybody wanna browse like they know the next big site, But when they click, it's the same old hype, Just a bunch of reposts, nothing quite like, And web surfers act like they forgot about Digg.

Nowadays, everybody wanna share like they've found the freshest link, But when they scroll, it's closer to the brink, Just echoes of the past, faster than you blink, And online crowds act like they forgot about Digg.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#312

Post by paulmd »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #236
natpalmer1776 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some degree you see this pattern repeated over and over anytime you have an organization gain any sort of longevity. A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would…

> A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would disrupt the existing power balance or pose an existential threat to the organization. That pretty much directly descri…

[your comment has been marked as a duplicate]

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#313

Post by Scea91 »

ceving wrote: post #81

There is too much politically motivated agitation on Wikipedia. This is particularly a problem because Wikipedia's power apparatus is completely undemocratic and anonymous. Wikipedia's organizational structure corresponds to a medieval feudal system.

Feudal system? I didn’t know my oldest son will inherit my Wikipedia pages and live from the rent paid by the editors.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#314

Post by t0bia_s »

whatshisface wrote: post #246
t0bia_s wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idea of centralized and universal interpenetration of information soon or later bump into boundaries. By definition, it's impossible approach. Interpretation vary with knowledge, culture and is shaped by politics, religion, regime, etc.

That's why you don't interpret it, just list it: encyclopedically.

History is written by winners. If you agree, then there is a lot of unlisted informations. If you don't agree, then you are on the winners side.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#315

Post by throwaway2037 »

tivert wrote: post #60

Here's how they define toxicity (only clearly described in their "Supplementary material"): https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/... Honestly, that's probably the most "measurable" kind of toxicity, but Wikipedia has a much bigger problem with toxicity than that. The whole place is infused with passive-aggression (by policy) and toxic double-standards. IMHO, you have to be deeply weird to be a…

I very much like this post, but I would suggest a small edit: "toxic double-standards" -> "double-standards".

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#316

Post by throwaway2037 »

natpalmer1776 wrote: post #144
tivert wrote: post #60

Here's how they define toxicity (only clearly described in their "Supplementary material"): https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/... Honestly, that's probably the most "measurable" kind of toxicity, but Wikipedia has a much bigger problem with toxicity than that. The whole place is infused with passive-aggression (by policy) and toxic double-standards. IMHO, you have to be deeply weird to be a…

To some degree you see this pattern repeated over and over anytime you have an organization gain any sort of longevity. A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would…

The reflection of human society.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#317

Post by throwaway2037 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #236
natpalmer1776 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some degree you see this pattern repeated over and over anytime you have an organization gain any sort of longevity. A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would…

> A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would disrupt the existing power balance or pose an existential threat to the organization. That pretty much directly descri…

Real question: Where do you go instead? Or, do you use Google to find blog posts with the answers that you need? I agree that the formerly-great Q&A site (that shall remain unnamed) has fallen from grace with terrible new leadership. The drama seems never to end. I vote to fork the whole thing and bring back Monica. :)

For my areas of interest (plain old Java, Python, C, C++, and JavaScript), the search results are still good. However, I can understand that your areas may be in decline.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#318

Post by glimshe »

zlg_codes wrote: post #306
glimshe wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is thinking that we can create a space where the powerful outside the space won't be powerful inside the space. Same thing with crypto.

Such a thing is possible, by removing things that give them power while inside the space. I.e. anti-gov, anti-corp spaces can and will exclude those entities once discovered. Sure there's espionage but that's true of any situation.

Sure, we can create something very small, private and fringe and be happy with our little kingdom. The powerful wouldn't care about that because it doesn't threaten their power. Once it becomes relevant, that's when they take action and show up with money and hard, real-world power. This is not some deep state conspiracy theory, it's simply about the powerful having the means to get their way.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#319

Post by throwaway2037 »

prox wrote: post #232
Gare wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Is there any way to "inoculate" organisation to prevent this failure mode?

I feel it’s basically an exponent of selfishness/greed. So for some it might be status or other incentives that make them favour a moat or developing an entrenched behavior. Countering it means to cultivate an open and egalitarian platform, where vulnerability is part of the equation as well as the associated trust that is needed. Good faith over bad faith. Selfless behavior vs “I am gonna get mine.” My sources are m…

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. "Good faith" is hard to put a finger on, but you know it when you see it! I will never forget reading a bug report in Python where a senior developer replied to a junior developer: (roughly) "That's a good point. I didn't think of that. Your idea is better." I had never seen that level of humbleness in other open source projects that I follow.

I bet the top Wiki editors don't think there is an issue. That is the hard part. How do you get the people with the most vested interest accept change?

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#320

Post by throwaway2037 »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #297
Gare wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Is there any way to "inoculate" organisation to prevent this failure mode?

BDFL that recognizes that that is a problem and refuses to allow it to happen, regardless of any personal pain it causes them. Example: Guido van Rossum

Why was this down voted? Guido van Rossum has the magic touch. He steered Python for 20+ years, including through the 2->3 upgrade. And, you never read negative stuff about him. Many other famous open source leaders are the subject various personal attacks. Linus Torvalds famously took off time to improve his interpersonal skills.
Post reply on HN