Live data from Hacker News

Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

academic.oup.com

351–360 of 363 posts

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

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Power is not set in stone, nor is it a force of nature or something else unstoppable. It's merely other humans, and they are not invincible.

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

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just think it will die because everything else that was wonderful from 2009 or before already has Assuming this is true, what are the leading hypotheses? Regression to the mean? Eternal September? I know everyone likes to talk about "enshittification", but what is the actual mechanism? Since this is HN, someone's going to say "capitalism", but "capitalism" doesn't explain why Google search results get worse or Fac…

> capitalism not dismissing other points your making or questions you're asking, but what happens with search results is a phenomenon that's more or less related to monopoly power - so as they (Google) control more, the classical theories behind capitalism no longer hold. For example, they provide worse search, but there is no close second. Even if there is a close second, that "other guy" is unable to afford the 60+…

Competition is a double edged sword. More competition means businesses are liable to go bankrupt if they don't optimize for profit above all else, ethics be damned. Less competition means lazy monopolies. If you're anti-monopoly, it's hard to think of a bigger "lazy monopoly" than the government.

There isn't a simple solution here.

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

#353
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Toxicity: A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make people leave a discussion Rude and disrespectful are subjective. As a layperson learning biology for fun (e.g. Bob Sapolsky lectures) I often chuckle at how rude or shocking nature can be! I grimace at how nature videos (e.g. a pride of lions hunting a baby elephant) will garner comments like "you're sick for filming this!" or "do somet…

I think looking at the examples and their rating of toxicity, there's a difference between a Semmelweis who says, "I think you're killing people with established practice" and a theoretical one who says, "You [expletive] [ethnic slur] ... should be shot like a dog in the street."

The point is Semmelweis, whose information saved huge numbers of human lives, would be lumped in the same category (“toxic”) as your theoretical example, on account of Sammelweis being considered rude and disrespectful.

In simplest terms, ideas that threaten orthodoxy can be considered rude and disrespectful, and thus “toxic”.

So perhaps the definition of toxic needs more refinement, or toxicity isn't the right thing to be looking at, despite it sounding about right in everyday conversation.

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you still tend to answer questions? It feels like there is a drop in quality contributors too because they got invested, but have peers engaging in the behavior you describe as a questioner. They want to take kinder approaches, but that's never going to win over that power user segment. I have a high reputation that unlocks privileges, but I rarely go back these days to answer questions. If I can snipe someone tha…

I've asked about 2X questions to answers. I have contributed some fairly good answers, but I have mainly gone to get questions answered. Early on, I probably asked them badly, but I learned to ask them better, and the answers came much less frequently. So ask a question badly, and get an insult, but also a useful answer. Ask a question well, and ... crickets . Lately, I usually end up answering my own question, just…

    Early on, I probably asked them badly, but I learned to ask them better, and the answers came much less frequently. So ask a question badly, and get an insult, but also a useful answer. Ask a question well, and ... crickets. Lately, I usually end up answering my own question, just so there might be something for someone else to find.
Incredible! This is exactly my experience. So many times, I ask a question, and either "crickets" (no replies), or some replies with zero up votes on my question. So... do they think my question isn't valuable, yet they take the time to answer it? Bizarre. In the last 2-3 years, my usage of the website has largely decayed to read-only.

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

#355
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

I went to answer a questions yesterday, and it had been locked having been marked as a duplicate of an unrelated question. Mind blowing stuff.

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

#356

Fun fact: if you check the Talk page of controversial pages you can frequently see all the public interest information the extremely biased editors are trying to suppress. Recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Nashville_school_sho...

One take might be that it is indeed rambling and not targeted. I say that because the statements, while appearing political, display a profound ignorance on the topic. It is entirely possible this was a disturbed individual who wished to do harm and saw this as a 'acceptable to some' way of perpetrating those crimes.

It's like someone claiming to be vegan to help them veil their eating disorder. Just because they say they are vegan, and do things a vegan might, does not mean that they share the behavioral traits or values of a vegan.

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's so philosophically difficult to say the information that makes the winners look bad belongs in the encyclopedia.

Because for some, it's called hypothesis, hoax, disinformation, toxic... and needs to be "corrected".

If you can't get people to agree on what happened, you can list who said what about it, and what they said.

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

#358
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two answers: (1) it's not possible to be consistent because there are far too many posts for us to read; we can only moderate what we see. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com; and (2) shallow as the GP's criticism may have been, your comment was far worse. Responding to…

1) fair enough. Should the negative empty comment I was referring to have been flagged for your attention? I appreciate the answer may very well be "no, you're wasting our time with the little stuff", and I'd agree. 2) I honestly don't know how to respond to people like this. Their purpose is to negate, even purposefully destroy. I've sat down with people I've worked with who are apathetic and hopeless and slowly tau…

I wanted to give you a proper response to this but ran out of time. In any case, thanks for the kind reply!

If you felt like the comment was breaking the site guidelines (for example against shallow dismissals), then yes, a flag would be appropriate; or perhaps a downvote as a slightly lesser expression.

In terms of "people like this": the trouble is that we can't tell much about each other from these tiny globs of internet text, and what ends up happening is that we connect the dots in ways that come from our own prior experiences (usually negative ones), and then we end up feeling surrounded by jerks.

The root issue is not that everyone is that big of a jerk (though some do behave that way)—it's that we don't have enough information. Shallow comments expressing negative opinions are the most likely to generate this feeling in the reader, because the combination of lack-of-information and negative-sentiment is sort of fatal.

From a moderation point of view: if you read enough of these threads, it turns out that every reader has a different set of triggers for what feels to them like "people like this" whose "purpose is to negate" and so on. People thus have completely different interpretations of which are the worst comments. This makes sense once you understand that we're all filling in the blanks, connecting the dots, etc. out of our own prior experience. We all have such different priors that we will in different blanks in different ways.

This is not a basis for strong vocal moderation because if I scold one user saying "you're being purposely negative, please don't", what happens is a great many readers for whom the comment didn't land that way will feel like the mods are being heavy-handed and forcefully protest. Moreover, the user being scolded will most often reply, quite sincerely, that they had no intention of being that way and had no idea that their comment could land that way.

When running into a comment like that which creates a feeling like that, the temptation is to reply forcefully—i.e. with as much frustration as the comment generated in you—but for the purposes of a good online discussion, this is the worst thing to do. It only creates even stronger negative feelings in others, who then feel entitled to strike back in turn—and we get a downward spiral which is equal parts tedious and nasty.

The only thing I know that works is to "metabolize" your negative reaction by letting it run its course in you, and eventually subside, before replying. At that point, you have two options available that you didn't have before: either to reply neutrally, or to simply move on to something else that's more interesting.

Of course this advice is not so easy to follow in practice, and what it requires of you (I don't mean you personally of course, but all of us) is much deeper than it appears. On the bright side, it does mean that internet forum communication is not quite as trivial as it appears!

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

#359
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[your comment has been marked as a duplicate]

I went to answer a questions yesterday, and it had been locked having been marked as a duplicate of an unrelated question. Mind blowing stuff.

That’s what happens when you gamify “moderation” (pushing buttons at people) instead of providing answers. You get what you incentivize.

Honestly, another major deficiency of their approach is the lack of any meta-moderation. If you gamify moderation, it really behooves you to also have some mechanism for gamifying finding and punishing users who abuse that moderation. You’ve created a predator-prey cycle between content generation and content moderation, without some mechanism to drain the “economy” of moderation eventually the predators will exhaust all available prey and then starve. Even HN has the “vouch” button and that’s on top of a generally less toxic culture in the first place.

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

#360
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) fair enough. Should the negative empty comment I was referring to have been flagged for your attention? I appreciate the answer may very well be "no, you're wasting our time with the little stuff", and I'd agree. 2) I honestly don't know how to respond to people like this. Their purpose is to negate, even purposefully destroy. I've sat down with people I've worked with who are apathetic and hopeless and slowly tau…

I wanted to give you a proper response to this but ran out of time. In any case, thanks for the kind reply! If you felt like the comment was breaking the site guidelines (for example against shallow dismissals), then yes, a flag would be appropriate; or perhaps a downvote as a slightly lesser expression. In terms of "people like this": the trouble is that we can't tell much about each other from these tiny globs of i…

Thank you so much Dan. Was away so didn't see it immediately. Will reply in private. Thanks again!
Post reply on HN